Repair and Strengthening of Bridge Substructures

Marquete University
e-Publications@Marquete
Master's Teses (2009 -) Dissertations, Teses, and Professional Projects
Repair and Strengthening of Bridge Substructures
Steven W. Ainge
Marquete University
Recommended Citation
Ainge, Steven W., "Repair and Strengthening of Bridge Substructures" (2012). Master's Teses (2009 -). Paper 173.
htp://epublications.marquete.edu/theses_open/173

REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING
OF BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURES

by

Steven W. Ainge, B.S.C.E.

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School,
Marquette University,
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

December 2012

ABSTRACT
REPAIR AND STRENGTHENING
OF BRIDGE SUBSTRUCTURES


Marquette University, 2012

Deterioration of bridge substructures has been a serious concern throughout
Wisconsin. Concrete, steel and timber members all require distinct repair methods which
not only address the true causes of deterioration, but protect the member from future
damage. Utilizing repair techniques that merely address the effect of the deterioration
has proven costly and unreliable. Understanding the relationship between cost and
service life of modern repair methods can help maintenance engineers make informed
decisions that will maximize efficacy.
A survey was sent to 90 maintenance engineers throughout the United States to
determine the efficacy and cost of common repair methods. Unique repair procedures
were also investigated based on the results of the survey. Eight bridges throughout the
Southeast and Southwest regions of WisDOT were documented. These bridges displayed
varying stages of deterioration as well as typical repair methods. By evaluating these
bridges it was determined that the damage caused by deicing chemicals is extensive and
varying. Expansion joint degradation has accounted for a large portion of deterioration
throughout Wisconsins bridge infrastructure. Documentation indicating how long
repairs had been in place gave the research team an estimate for longevity of repairs in
Wisconsin.
Repair methods were documented and analyzed for concrete, timber, steel and
scour. They were considered for their longevity, relevance in Wisconsins climate, ease
of completion and cost. Further organization highlighted repairs based on specific
substructure element relevance, in an attempt to address unique deterioration by
substructure member. After the repairs were analyzed, three separate decision matrices
were created in order to compare differing repair methods. Decision matrices were
created for concrete repairs, pile repairs and scour repairs. The pile repair decision
matrix was created in lieu of separate timber and steel decision matrices, since those
materials are typically only used for piles of modern substructures. These decision
matrices can be used to design appropriate substructure repairs which will be both cost-
effective and durable.

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who helped me throughout the
duration of my thesis.
I would first like to thank my advisor Dr. Foley for his frequent guidance
throughout this research. The creation of this document would have been impossible
without his knowledge and input. I am also very grateful to Dr. Wan for initially
involving me with this research, and providing me with such an excellent opportunity.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Federle for his constructive insight on my thesis
committee.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my family for their continued
support and encouragement. Their willingness to proofread my writing, and general
interest in my research, was a tremendous help. Finally, I would like to thank my
girlfriend Christie for her fantastic work on the drawings and her constant support while
we have been at Marquette.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. i
CHAPTER 1 INTRODCUTION .........................................................................................1
1.1 Research Motivations ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Review of Past Research ........................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Objectives of Thesis ............................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Thesis Organization ............................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 MAINTENANCE ENGINEER SURVEY ..................................................10
2.1 Southeast Region ................................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Southwest Region ................................................................................................................ 15
2.3 Northwest Region ................................................................................................................ 25
2.4 North Central Region ........................................................................................................... 26
2.5 Northeast Region ................................................................................................................. 29
2.6 Other States Surveyed .......................................................................................................... 30
2.7 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................ 70
CHAPTER 3 COMMON WISCONSIN SUBSTRUCTURE DETERIORATION ..........74
3.1 Bridge B-40-0115 ................................................................................................................ 74
3.2 Bridge B-40-0226 ................................................................................................................ 82
3.3 Bridge B-40-0494 ................................................................................................................ 85
3.4 Bridge B-40-0189 ................................................................................................................ 88
3.5 Bridge B-40-0122 ................................................................................................................ 92
iii

3.6 Bridges B-40-0129 and B-40-0130 ...................................................................................... 94
3.7 Bridge B-13-0008 .............................................................................................................. 100
3.8 Bridge B-11-0024 .............................................................................................................. 103
3.9 Concluding Remarks .......................................................................................................... 105
CHAPTER 4 CONCRETE SUBSTRUCTURES ............................................................108
4.1 General Repairs .................................................................................................................. 111
4.2 Concrete Pile Repair .......................................................................................................... 125
4.3 Concrete Pier Repair .......................................................................................................... 134
4.4 Concrete Abutment and Wingwall Repair ......................................................................... 138
4.5 Concrete Bridge Seat Repair .............................................................................................. 146
CHAPTER 5 TIMBER SUBSTRUCTURES ..................................................................151
5.1 Timber Pile Repair ............................................................................................................. 152
5.2 Supplemental Piles ............................................................................................................. 162
5.3 Timber Sway Bracing Repair ............................................................................................. 165
5.4 Timber Sill Abutment Repair ............................................................................................. 166
5.5 Timber Corbel Repair ........................................................................................................ 169
CHAPTER 6 STEEL SUBSTRUCTURES .....................................................................171
6.1 Adding Metal to Steel H-Piles ........................................................................................... 172
6.2 Pile Jacket .......................................................................................................................... 174
iv

6.3 Concrete Encasement ......................................................................................................... 177
6.4 Corrosion Protection .......................................................................................................... 178
CHAPTER 7 SCOUR COUNTERMEASURES .............................................................182
7.1 Piles .................................................................................................................................... 182
7.2 Piers.................................................................................................................................... 183
7.3 Abutments .......................................................................................................................... 200
7.4 Bank Slope ......................................................................................................................... 208
7.5 River Stabilization.............................................................................................................. 212
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
AND FUTURE RESEARCH ..........................................................................................217
8.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 217
8.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 221
8.3 Recommendations and Future Research ............................................................................ 226
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................229
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE ENGINEER SURVEY RESULTS .......................... A-1

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Bridge deterioration has become a widespread problem throughout the
transportation infrastructure of the United States. Implementing cost-effective and
reliable repairs is necessary to ensure that full service lives can be achieved from existing
bridges. Understanding the destructive mechanisms that are acting on bridge
substructures throughout Wisconsin will help to ensure appropriate steps are taken not
only to repair deterioration but also to prevent future material failures.
1.1 Research Motivations
Research focused on bridge superstructure repair is much more common than
research regarding substructure elements. There currently exists no document which
effectively analyzes the possible repair methods for bridge substructure deterioration.
Significant cost savings could be realized by exploring alternate means of rehabilitation.
It was discovered that the majority of concrete bridges require repair within the first 11 to
20 years of their service lives (Tilly 2011). Since such a large number of bridges will
require work within the first 20 years of service life, it is imperative to analyze how
repairs are being conducted. Maximizing the efficiency and reliability of repairs that are
conducted on concrete substructures could result in significant cost savings throughout
the service life of the structure.
There is currently a lack of understanding throughout the bridge repair industry
regarding when certain repair procedures are applicable. Applying an inadequate or
incorrect repair procedure has no guarantee of providing any benefit over taking no
action. Repair failure rates are notoriously high for concrete substructure members.
2

Only 50% of concrete repairs are deemed successful, with a 25% failure rate (Tilly 2011).
This high failure rate is presumably due to the frequent use of concrete surface repair for
a vast array of deterioration problems, regardless of whether the patch is appropriate.
The same survey discovered that the concrete surface repair was successful only 45% of
the instances for which it was implemented (Tilly 2011). The bridge maintenance
industry has increasingly relied upon a repair which fails more often than not. Expanding
knowledge regarding current and unique repair procedures would help to alleviate many
of the problems caused by the overuse of inadequate restoration methods. Concrete
deterioration throughout Wisconsin is typically a result of reinforcement corrosion caused
by chloride intrusion from deicing chemicals. There are several modern repair
techniques which could be used to more effectively address this issue than the standard
concrete surface repair. Sacrificial anodes, impressed current systems and chloride
extraction processes are all capable of protecting steel reinforcement from corrosion
caused by chloride ions embedded within the concrete. The use of a fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) wrap, fiberglass jacket, or concrete encasement is an option to slow or
prevent future chloride intrusion from occurring on a concrete member. If a concrete
surface repair was placed in conjunction with one of the aforementioned repairs, the
rehabilitation would have a much longer service life. While this solution only represents
one of the many problems plaguing substructure members throughout Wisconsin, it is
representative of how new technology could be combined with existing repair
procedures. Analyzing new and unique repairs in terms of life-cycle costs will help to
determine if they are worth the additional investment.

3

1.2 Review of Past Research
Bridge substructure repair has a lack of research when compared to superstructure
repair. Distributing information regarding effective repair methods is necessary to
increase the reliability of repair procedures. There were a number of studies and research
projects undertaken in an attempt to improve the procedures for rehabilitation. Portions
of each of these studies were important for considering substructure rehabilitation, but no
single source has yet been created for substructure repair.
The Department of Transportation for the state of Iowa conducted research that
focused on maintenance, repair and rehabilitation methods for bridges (Wipf. et. al.
2003). Significant portions of this study were dedicated to superstructure rehabilitation
methods. The research that was conducted for substructure members was focused on pile
repair. The specific pile repair procedures that were covered are well described and the
design processes are thoroughly explained. What lacks in this study, is the analysis of
when specific repair procedures are most appropriate. There is no consideration placed
on analyzing cost or life data for the provided repairs. Additionally, the repairs are not
objectively compared to one another for the purposes of determining which repair would
be the most effective for a given element. The study provides useful information about
how repairs should be conducted, but never analyzes them in terms of efficacy or
estimated life.
Another useful source of information was the website managed by the Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT 2012). The website that the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT) has compiled provides recommended repairs for varying
methods of deterioration. In addition to describing which repair methods are appropriate,
4

average cost and expected service life are included for every mentioned repair. Repair
cost and service life were typically both very difficult to obtain due to the lack of research
on substructure repair methods. Since the ODOT website was concerned with the entire
bridge structure, the substructure information was not plentiful. Typically one or two
different methods were included for each form of deterioration. The specific efficacy of
these repairs was not mentioned, with the exception of the estimated life data. Providing
a means to determine when the mentioned repairs are most appropriate to conduct is
necessary to ensure maximum efficiency.
The Joint Departments of the Army and the Air Force created a bridge inspection,
maintenance, and repair manual for use on military structures (Army and Air Force
1994). This is an expansive document which tries to cover all phases of bridge
conservation. Since the document was released 18 years prior to this research project, it
lacks any state of the art repair methods. Most major forms of substructure deterioration
are mentioned, with varying rehabilitation procedures that could be enacted. The
documented repairs are described in very general terms, without considering repair life.
When multiple repair methods are mentioned for one form of deterioration, no analysis is
done to highlight which situations would warrant a certain repair method. While the
document provides an abundance of information about conducting bridge repairs, there is
no mechanism in place to highlight which method is the most appropriate.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has created a document to
analyze bridge scour and the possible repair methods (FHWA 2009). This research
incorporates a decision matrix, which highlights when each scour repair method is
applicable. Not only is this document very informative for considering scour repairs, it
5

references which states are most experienced with a given repair procedure. Having the
knowledge of a certain states expertise provided a means of obtaining further
information from proficient and knowledgeable sources. The decision matrix created by
the FHWA helped to provide a basic format, which is reflected in the final decision
matrices of this document.
1.3 Objectives of Thesis
In an attempt to complete the understanding of effective bridge substructure repair
methods, there were several key objectives. One of the primary goals of this document is
to bring attention to how substructure repairs are currently being utilized throughout
Wisconsin. Understanding the specific conditions which are necessary to increase repair
reliability and service life will create a basic knowledge for when repairs should be
implemented. Another goal of the thesis is to highlight the importance of the life-cycle
cost of different repair methods. Repairs should be considered in terms of their cost and
estimated service life to give a clear picture of which repair will truly be the most cost-
effective. The last goal of this research is to provide a system for selecting the most
efficient repair method for a given substructure deterioration. The decision matrix is
intended to create an objective system of analysis, which will help to standardize the
repair decision making process.
Compiling the knowledge gained from site visits throughout Wisconsin, lessons
can be learned from the current use of substructure repairs within WisDOT. An example
of how wildly the efficacy of a repair can vary is seen in the concrete encasements on
bridges B-40-0188 and B-40-0130 (included in Chapter 3). When the concrete
6

encasement method was completed for concrete columns, the result was very effective.
The repair was in place 18 years at the time of the site visit and displayed minor cracking
and delamination. When the same repair was conducted on a pier cap, cracking and
delamination were widespread within the first 5 years. Spalling resulted in exposed
reinforcement near the roadway. Analyzing the different site conditions, in addition to
how the repair was conducted on each element, helped to provide information as to why
the column encasement was more effective. Observing an effective pier cap repair, such
as the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) wrap, and comparing the differences to the
concrete encasement repair resulted in important conclusions regarding the deterioration
mechanisms at work. While this only provides one example, the importance of analyzing
effective and ineffective repairs together is crucial to expanding the understanding of
substructure repair methods.
Consideration of life-cycle cost while selecting a repair method will lead to more
reliable repair procedures. Instead of constantly relying upon the cheapest repair
procedure, repair procedures could be selected as a function of cost and estimated service
life. For this to be accomplished, both cost and repair life need to be known prior to the
decision making process. While this will require improved record keeping on the part of
maintenance engineers, some data has already been compiled. Bearing in mind basic
service life estimates could have a profound impact upon how repairs are designed.
Disseminating the knowledge that more than half of concrete surface repairs fail, and that
their surface life is usually only 5-10 years could change the frequency with which they
are conducted. Even basic service life considerations could result in significant cost
savings, if repairs are chosen for their life-cycle cost information.
7

Analyzing repair methods in terms of substructure member applicability in
addition to life-cycle cost data is the last major objective of this document. The decision
matrices (included in Chapter 8) are a means for maintenance engineers to determine
when repair methods are applicable for certain substructure members. Improper use of a
repair procedure could not only be costly, but also dangerous. The decision matrices are
seen as a tool for selecting the most efficient repair procedure based on applicability, cost
and service life. Standardizing the process with which repairs are chosen is crucial to
developing further understanding as to why certain repairs are successful. Once more
knowledge regarding repair efficacy is obtained, the decision matrices can be further
refined. Altering and improving the decision matrices should be a continual process,
which will ensure they are relevant and useful.
1.4 Thesis Organization
In order to effectively outline the research process that was undertaken, this
document follows a very specific format. In lieu of the traditional literature review
prefacing the research, the maintenance engineer survey is Chapter 2. It was necessary to
document the maintenance engineer survey first because it provided a basis for
completing the remainder of the research. All of the included repair methods in the later
chapters are a direct result of the input given by maintenance engineers throughout
Wisconsin and the other states that participated. Repair methods that were highlighted
for their efficacy and repair life by the maintenance engineers were thoroughly
researched to make the document as relevant and useful as possible.
8

Another result of the maintenance engineer survey was the amount of repair
methods included in each of the repair chapters. It will be seen that Chapter 4 (Concrete
Substructures) and Chapter 7 (Scour Countermeasures) are significantly longer than
Chapter 5 (Timber Substructures) and Chapter 6 (Steel Substructures). This approach
was taken intentionally for a variety of reasons. Steel and timber members are
increasingly rare on bridge substructures. The most frequent use of these materials is for
piles. While multiple repair methods are included, the diversity does not exist as it does
for concrete members. Concrete and scour were also given additional attention based on
the responses received from the maintenance engineer survey. Concrete accounted for
the vast majority of deterioration issues that WisDOT maintenance engineers reported.
Scour was thoroughly researched because multiple responses indicated that riprap was a
frequent repair for scour. Provided riprap is sized correctly, it can be an effective means
of armoring a bridge substructure against scour. It was deemed important to portray the
variety of solutions available for scour, in an attempt to assure the most cost-effective and
reliable method was implemented. No responses indicated what action the maintenance
engineers would take if scour required a more aggressive approach, such as a structural
repair method. Distributing information regarding unique armoring techniques and the
proper structural techniques seemed crucial to conducting appropriate, cost-effective
repairs. The chapters focused on substructure repair methods were created as a result of
the survey, and are intended to reflect those responses as closely as possible.
The placement of the decision matrices was the last important aspect of the thesis
organization. All of the decision matrices were included in Chapter 8. Instead of placing
the decision matrix in the chapter where that specific deterioration is addressed, it was
9

deemed more appropriate to place all of the decision matrices into a separate chapter.
Logistically this was convenient since timber and steel repairs are included in the same
decision matrix (Pile Repair Decision Matrix). More importantly, this created a separate
section where the decision matrices could be highlighted and considered as a single unit.
The decision matrices are intended to be used in conjunction with one another,
representing techniques for repairing the entire substructure. The decision matrices are
focused on life-cycle costs and repair efficacy, whereas the specific material chapters
highlight the process and relevancy of rehabilitation methods. Under the current
organizational system, should it be desired, the decision matrices could be easily removed
for updating and use in repair selection.

10

CHAPTER 2 MAINTENANCE ENGINEER SURVEY
The first activity undertaken in this research effort was to generate a survey to be
sent to maintenance engineers around the United States and within the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation regions. This survey allowed the research team to
determine common repair practices among maintenance engineers in Wisconsin and other
states. The survey provided a basis for selecting repair methods that would be analyzed
throughout the research process. Understanding relevant repair information was
necessary before thorough reviews of existing literature could be conducted.
The survey was composed of nine questions, which were designed by the research
team to determine the common deterioration issues that occur and the common repair
techniques that are utilized throughout the different WisDOT regions and different states.
The survey, included as Figure 2.1, was sent to 35 maintenance engineers throughout
WisDOT. Of the 35 sent out, 11 different people responded, for a response percentage of
31.4%. The responses were then categorized by material to analyze levels of required
rehabilitation. The state of Wisconsin has roughly 13,600 bridges throughout its
roadways (WisDOT 2011). Figure 2.2 is a pie chart that depicts the percentage of
deterioration for each material based on the responses that were received.
Concrete substructure members represent the vast majority of issues that were
reported through the questionnaire. The General Issues category labeled in the pie chart
refer to nonspecific deterioration issues such as scour and leaking expansion joints, which
did not imply a specific material. Since concrete deterioration involved such a large
portion of the responses, it was categorized to represent the specific issues that were
reported. A breakdown of the concrete deterioration that was reported can be seen in
11

Figure 2.3. It can be seen from the chart that cracking and spalling make up the majority
of the deterioration issues seen.

Figure 2.1 Survey Questions
Repair and Strengthening of Bridge Substructures
WHRP Project 0092-11-08
Name:
Email Address:
DOT State:
DOT Region:

The survey questions are contained in the following. Please feel free to type in your response to the
questions and provide as much detail as deemed necessary.

1. What are the typical substructure deterioration problems that you have encountered?

2. What investigation methods do you use to identify sources of substructure deterioration? For
example, what method or sensor is used to identify scour?

3. Are there any novel NDE methods to detect substructure deterioration that you are aware of that you
would like the research team to investigate for applicability in Wisconsin?

4. What techniques have you commonly used or seen for repair of deteriorated or damaged
substructures? How effective are they in your opinion? What are the positive and negative aspects
of the technique(s)?

5. Based on your experience, what do you feel has been the most effective repair technique for a
specific problem (i.e. scour, concrete cracking, concrete spalling, steel corrosion)?

6. What have been the least effective in your experience? What has been the source(s) of the lack of
effectiveness?

7. Do you have plans and specifications for a substructure repair project that has been completed? If
so, could you please provide a project ID and source for obtaining this information. The
information of cost of one repair technique relative to another will be very helpful to the research
team.

8. Are there any general or specialty contractors you have worked with in the past on substructure
deterioration and repair projects that you suggest the research team contact?

9. Are you aware of any online maintenance manuals that would be relevant to this project? If so,
could you provide a link or instructions on how to access them below?

12

Figure 2.2 Total WisDOT Response Results

Figure 2.3 WisDOT Concrete Response Results
The results of this survey were also separated by region to show which issues are
common between WisDOT regions. The regions of WisDOT are portrayed in Figure 2.4.
Given that some of the regions only provided a few responses, the results may not be as
representative as those provided for the entire state. The full collection of all responses
received is included in Appendix A.
68.75%
9.38%
12.50%
9.38%
WisDOT Deterioration by Material
Concrete
Steel
Timber
General Issues
31.82%
9.09%
36.36%
13.64%
4.55%
4.55%
Concrete Deterioration Results
Cracking
Delamination
Spalling
Rebar Corrosion
Scaling
Concrete Deterioration
13

Figure 2.4 Map of WisDOT Regions
2.1 Southeast Region
The Southeast Region of WisDOT provided two responses to the survey that was
distributed. From these responses it was determined that three major issues are present
throughout the region. These three issues are cracking, delamination and rotted timber
piles. The percentage of how often each of these deterioration issues was reported is
depicted in Figure 2.5. Delamination accounts for the largest classification of
deterioration in the Southeast region.

Figure 2.5 Southeast Region Response Results
25%
50%
25%
Southeast Region Deterioration
Cracking
Delamination
Rotted Timber Piles
14

The common repair technique that was reported for the delaminated concrete was
a simple concrete surface repair. This repair method consists of removing the concrete to
a depth of 1-inch below the reinforcing steel, or to sound concrete, and replacing it with a
similar concrete. This method was reported as being rather unreliable, with a vast range
for the longevity of the repair. It was mentioned that some repairs have lasted less than
one year (supposedly due to not following the manufacturers specifications), while
others have lasted for more than twenty years.
Concrete encasement has been successfully done on several bridges in the
Southeast Region with fairly positive results. When the research team spent a day
documenting common repair practices (discussed in following chapter), the concrete
encasement method was observed on several bridges. The survey respondents noted that
concrete encasement tends to produce fairly widespread cracking within the first five
years after the repair, presumably due to the shrinking of the new concrete.
For the rotted timber piles, the repair method reported in the survey responses was
reinforced concrete encasement. The concrete encasement is intended to protect the
timber pile from further deterioration. The downside of this process is that the timber
pile can no longer be visually inspected. If deterioration continues after the pile is
encased, the warning signs will not be as obvious for the inspection team.
The Southeast region reported that taking no action was preferred for hairline
cracks that appeared on concrete substructure members. Epoxy injection was deemed as
not cost effective, even though it is being used more frequently throughout the Southeast
Region. Epoxy injection is used frequently because it helps to provide a barrier against
chloride intrusion. In the Southeast region, many of the hairline cracks may not be large
15

enough or appropriately placed to warrant the use of epoxy injection. If there is no direct
threat of chlorides causing reinforcement corrosion, taking no action is an understandably
viable option.
2.2 Southwest Region
The Southwest Region of WisDOT provided four responses to the survey. The
deterioration issues that were documented were slightly more widespread due to the
increased number of responses. A graphic representation of these responses can be seen
in Figure 2.6. Fifty percent of the deterioration issues that were described in the survey
were reported as a result of cracking and subsequent spalling.

Figure 2.6 Southwest Deterioration Results
Concrete surface repair was listed as the most common repair technique, and the
least effective, throughout the Southwest Region. Another solution presented was to
simply clean the exposed rebar and paint it with epoxy in order to prevent further
corrosion. Both of these methods were only deemed as moderately effective since
25%
25%
9%
17%
8%
8%
8%
Southwest Region Deterioration
Cracking
Spalling
Scaling
Scour
Exposed Piles-Section
Loss
Rotted Timber Piles
Microbiologically
Induced Corrosion
16

corrosion can continue if the cause of corrosion is not eliminated. If corrosion continues,
it was felt to cause both of these repair methods to fail over time.
Concrete jacketing has also been frequently utilized throughout the Southwest
Region. This repair technique has provided very positive results throughout the region. It
was documented that the repair has lasted 25-30 years before it ultimately failed. There
was some concern regarding chlorides attacking the concrete jacket instead of the original
concrete, which could cause the reinforcement embedded within the jacket to corrode.
Regardless, this action may slow down the corrosion of the reinforcement within the
original concrete member.
The use of shotcrete on spalled concrete was one of the more common repair
techniques mentioned in the survey responses. Some concern was mentioned regarding
the adhesion of the shotcrete to the existing concrete. The ability to replace deteriorated
concrete with a similar concrete was viewed as the method that would provide the most
adhesion between the two materials.
Fiberwrapping of cracked and spalled concrete columns was generally stated to be
the most effective repair throughout the region. An example of a fiberwrapped column
can be seen in Figure 2.7. This particular repair was completed in the Southwest Region.
Fiberwrap was reported to be a long lasting repair, due to the fact that it confines the
concrete and provides a protective layer to prevent new chlorides from penetrating the
concrete. It was also mentioned that fiberwrap has a much higher initial cost than simple
surface repairs, although the estimated life of a fiberwrap repair seems to greatly exceed
that of a surface repair.
17

Figure 2.7 FRP Column Repair
Rotted timber piles were also mentioned as a frequent deterioration issue
throughout the Southwest Region. Three separate repair methods of encasing timber
members were included in the survey responses.
The use of a steel collar to surround and strengthen a timber pile was
implemented within the Southwest region. This specific example of the steel collar was
for Bridge B-52-0624 in Richland County. This bridge was constructed in 1940 and was
110.8 feet long. It was a steel deck girder bridge that rested on timber pilings. The pier
drawing is shown in Figure 2.8. The diameter of the treated timber piles varied between
11 and 13 inches. It can also be seen in Figure 2.8 that Bridge B52-0624 was over a
river, which was the cause of the pile deterioration. Due to the age and deterioration
present throughout the structure, this bridge was ultimately replaced in 2008. This means
that the steel collar was in place for less than five years on this particular bridge. Despite
the repairs, the last inspection in 2008 rated the pilings at either a Condition State 2 or 3.
Condition State 2 for timber members indicates that splitting, cracking or crushing may
18

exist but it does not affect the serviceability. Condition State 3 indicates that this
deterioration has caused the member to lose strength. Seventeen of the piles were rated
as a 2 and seven of the piles were rated as a 3.

Figure 2.8 Bridge B52-0624 Pier Details (WisDOT 2011)
A detailed drawing of this repair method is included as Figure 2.9. As expected,
the deteriorated area of the wood piles is located at the water line. The collar is
composed of a 14-inch cast in place (CIP) pile shell and four L
. The
C.I.P. pile shell was cut in half and then placed around the pile. An angle was affixed to
each end of the shell and high strength bolts were used for the connections. A
x
threaded rod was used to connect the angles to one another. Five of these rods were used
on each side, with a spacing of 6-inches. High strength hex-bolts measuring
were
used to connect the angles to the pile shell with a spacing of 6-inches. The total length of
the steel collar was 3-feet, with all surfaces coated in zinc based paint. Since the bridge
19

was replaced within five years of the collar placement, the effectiveness and life of the
repair on this particular bridge cannot be determined unless five years is taken as the
repair method's longevity.

Figure 2.9 Steel Collar on a Timber Column (A. Johnson personal communication,
September 26, 2011)
The last inspection of the bridge stated that the timber piles were swollen at the
water line and experiencing section loss. While the steel collar will help to protect the
timber pile from additional deterioration, it does not mitigate any deterioration that was
already occurring within the timber.
The second repair method that was described in the survey responses for repairing
timber members was encasing the timber columns in a concrete wall in order to prevent
further deterioration and add strength to the columns. This repair has been completed on
several bridges throughout the Southwest Region. Bridge B-12-0559 is in Crawford
County on STH 35. It was constructed in 1938 and is a steel deck girder bridge. A
schematic of the timber pile bents of the bridge when it was built is included as Figure
2.10. The piles had experienced section loss at the water line and required repair. In
20

addition to the section loss, the piles were weathered, cracked and splitting. The pile
condition before the repair is shown in Figure 2.11. The cracking of the timber sway
bracing is evident in the photo, in addition to apparent section loss at the waterline.

Figure 2.10 Bridge B12-0559 Bent Details (WisDOT 2011)

Figure 2.11 Bridge B12-0559 Pile Bent Before Repairs (A. Johnson personal
communication, September 26, 2011)

21

A concrete pier wall was constructed in 2010 in order to encase the timber
columns. Figure 2.12 depicts the new pier wall with the timber columns. Additionally,
the sway bracing was removed because the pier wall made it unnecessary. The timber
columns were not replaced and weathering can still be seen on the visible portions of the
columns. The pier wall is intended to protect the timber columns from the deterioration
caused by exposure to water. This particular wall has not been in service long enough to
gauge the effectiveness of the repair method.

Figure 2.12 Bridge B12-0559 Pier Wall Encasing Timber Piles (A. Johnson personal

Bridge B-12-0705 is in Crawford County, Wisconsin on STH 131 over Kickapoo
River. It was built in 1941 and is 49 feet long. The bridge is a steel deck girder which is
supported by timber columns. Figure 2.13 shows the bridge condition when it was
initially built in 1941. The timber pile bents with sway bracing can be seen in the photo.
22

Figure 2.13 Bridge B12-0705 Photo after Construction (WisDOT 2011)

A detailed drawing of the bent is included as Figure 2.14. In the drawing it can be
seen that there are 7 timber piles with a spacing of
. In an inspection from 2007,

it was noted that 6 out of the 7 columns at the pile bent were 50% decayed or rotted with
splits. Due to the extensive nature of the deterioration, in 2008 a pier wall was
constructed in order to encase the timber piles. The new concrete pier wall is pictured in
Figure 2.15. It can be seen that the timber sway bracing was partially left in place for this
bridge.
The detailed drawing for the new pier wall is included as Figure 2.16. The new
pier wall is 2-feet thick and 33-feet long. It provides a 2.5-inch clear cover for the steel
reinforcement. The deteriorated areas of the timber piles were removed with a saw cut
and the exposed wood was treated with a preservative to prevent further deterioration.
When the repair was inspected in 2011, it was discovered that all of the piles were solid
and no rot was observed. Due to the recent nature of this repair, it is premature to define
longevity for the repair. Currently, the new pier wall is protecting the timber piles and
preventing damage from occurring at the waterline.
23

Figure 2.14 Bridge B12-705 Bent Details (WisDOT 2011)

Figure 2.15 Bridge B12-0705 Pier Wall Encasing Timber Piles (A. Johnson personal

Figure 2.16 Bridge B12-0705 Pier Wall Construction Details (WisDOT 2011)
24

The third method that was described for repairing timber deterioration in the
Southwest regions responses involved encasing the individual timber piles in concrete.
This method is similar to the creation of a pier wall, but only repairs the timber piles that
are damaged as opposed to encasing all of the timber piles in one bent. Prior to the
creation of the pier wall for Bridge B-12-0705, one of the timber piles had been encased.
The lone timber pile encasement can be seen in Figure 2.17. Corrugated metal pipe had
been filled with concrete in order to effectively encase the pile. It was discovered that the
bottom of the corrugated metal pipe was hollow when it was inspected in 2007, which
was more than ten years after its initial construction. This pile was eventually encased
with the pier wall documented in Figure 2.15.

Figure 2.17 Bridge B12-0705 Timber Pile Encasement (A. Johnson personal

25

2.3 Northwest Region
The Northwest Region provided two responses to the survey. The major issues
described were concrete cracking, concrete spalling, corrosion reinforcement and
settlement. A graphical representation of the responses is shown in Figure 2.18. The
chart indicates that 83% of the problems described could be associated with
reinforcement corrosion. The responses highlighted the importance of early detection of
substructure deterioration problems. If a problem is discovered early on, and is rectified
before it spreads, it can make the repair much simpler and less invasive.

Figure 2.18 Northwest Region Response Results
Concrete surface repair was again listed as one of the most common restorations
completed in the Northwest Region. This technique is frequently used on abutments and
piers in order to repair cracks and spalls. The importance of removing all of the damaged
concrete down to sound concrete was stressed. According to the responses the estimated
life of this method in this region ranges from 5 to 10 years, and was deemed the least
effective repair.
33%
33%
17%
17%
Northwest Region Deterioration
Cracking
Spalling
Rebar Corrosion
Settlement
26

Settlement was another frequent problem in the Northeast Region. Wing walls,
abutments and piers have been observed to settle throughout the region. Replacing the
wing walls was mentioned as a very effective solution in rectifying the settlement issue.
The high cost of the repair method was an important consideration in the choice of
restoration technique. There is a belief that replacing the wing walls lasts longer than
simply propping them up and supporting them with a deadman wall or brackets.
2.4 North Central Region
The North Central Region provided one response to the distributed survey. The
graphical representation of the issues that were mentioned in this response is included in
Figure 2.19. Deterioration of piles at the ground line and at the water line was mentioned
for both timber and steel piles. Concrete pier walls were also noted for the varying types
of deterioration that they experience. When the bridge spans over water, a number of
new issues appear for concrete pier walls. If the concrete was originally poured
underwater, issues such as voids, spalling, inadequate consolidation and undermining
have been observed by the maintenance engineers. These deteriorations have required
unique repairs be implemented throughout the North Central Region.
27

Figure 2.19 North Central Region Response Results
The most common repair techniques that were mentioned for the North Central
Region involve the rehabilitation of pilings. If the deterioration issue is above the
waterline, there is a separate method in use for both steel and concrete. If the pile is a
steel member, the corrosion has most likely caused section loss. This is combatted by
either welding or bolting additional steel members along the deteriorated sections of the
pile. If it is a concrete member, a simple concrete surface repair is typically completed.
This involves removing the deteriorated concrete down to sound concrete and replacing
with new concrete, ideally of a similar type.
If the deterioration has occurred below the waterline, different action must be
taken due to the weakening caused by frequent exposure to moisture. Concrete jacketing,
or encapsulation, is the preferred method of repair for these members. This can be a
difficult repair to complete if there is not enough room to place the forms because then
the concrete must be poured underwater. Due to these issues, the repair is most effective
and reliable if the substructure units can be dewatered prior to the rehabilitative effort.
Predictably, the dewatering of the substructure can be quite costly if it is necessary.
25%
25% 25%
25%
North Central Region
Deterioration
Spalling
Corrosion of Piling
Concrete Deterioration
Rotted Timber Piles
28

The most effective repair technique that was mentioned for the North Central
Region was the use of preplaced concrete aggregate repairs for underwater rehabilitation.
This process involves placing graded aggregate into water tight forms, then pumping in
grout in order to fill the gaps between the aggregate. This method is effective for
underwater repairs since it does not require dewatering, and has an increased strength
when compared to typical concrete repairs (J.F. Brennan 2012). An example of a
completed repair using this method can be seen in Figure 2.20. As with the other regions
throughout Wisconsin, the North Central Region reported that concrete surface repair, or
concrete patching, was the least reliable repair and was only viewed as a temporary
solution.

Figure 2.20 Preplaced Aggregate Concrete Repair (JF Brennan 2011)

29

2.5 Northeast Region
The Northeast Region provided two responses to the survey. The graphical
representation of the issues that were reported is included as Figure 2.21. The major
concerns were reinforcement corrosion, spalling, scour and erosion. The erosion that was
noted in the Northeast region was primarily located under and around abutments. Piers
were documented as the main location for scour related problems. The scour issues were
typically detected using a boat with a depth finder and survey rod. The concrete
deterioration was inspected using a hammer for sounding.
As with the other WisDOT regions, concrete surface repair was the most common
repair for substructures in the Northeast region. The procedure mentioned in the
Northeast region involved saw cutting to a depth of 1-inch and removing the deteriorated
concrete. The section is then patched either by hand placement or spraying with a fast
setting concrete. The region reported that this repair typically lasts only 2 to 5 years. It
was also noted that the restoration can be effective and long lasting if the reinforcement
and sound concrete are properly prepared.

Figure 2.21 Northeast Region Response Results
33%
33%
17%
17%
Northeast Region Deterioration
Spalling
Rebar Corrosion
Scour
Erosion
30

The use of riprap for a scour repair was rated as one of the most effective repairs
that have been done in the Northeast Region. Most of the repair methods were described
as temporary and marginally effective, with the exception of the riprap repair for scour.
The use of riprap helps to stabilize the area around the scour hole and its use has been
noted to be very effective throughout the region.
2.6 Other States Surveyed
The survey was also distributed to engineers within other state DOTs. This was
done in order to determine common practice throughout the United States. The survey
was sent out to members of 17 different state DOTs. A map of those states surveyed is
included in Figure 2.22. The blue states indicate the locations where the survey was
distributed. The survey was limited primarily to Midwest states, in an attempt to contact
areas with similar climates as Wisconsin. The survey provides the opportunity to obtain
unique solutions to deterioration problems from different states based upon how they
went about repairing damaged substructure elements. This survey provided additional
information regarding specialized state practices that could be added to the research that
was completed using published repair manuals. Not all of the states that were surveyed
provided responses.
31

Figure 2.22 Map of Surveyed States

Figure 2.23 is a map of which states responded to the survey, which are
represented by the red states. The number inside each state indicates the number of
responses received from that state. The response percentage for all of the states,
excluding Wisconsin, was 29.8%. The number of Wisconsin responses is slightly higher
than other states due to the assistance of WisDOT in providing the appropriate contact
information. However, the percentage of responses within Wisconsin was 31.4%, just
slightly higher than that acquired by the other states. It should be noted that due to the
difficulty of obtaining contact information for engineers throughout the country, the
results are by no means definitive and may represent region specific issues throughout a
state.
32

Figure 2.23 Map of States that Responded

2.6.1 I llinois
Illinois provided two responses to the survey. Since Illinois and Wisconsin share
a border, many of the problems reported by Illinois maintenance engineers directly
correlated with those reported by Wisconsin engineers. All of the substructure issues that
were mentioned by the Illinois maintenance engineers dealt with concrete members. A
breakdown of the reported deterioration issues in Illinois is depicted in Figure 2.24. Most
of the concerns are associated with reinforcement corrosion, due to the utilization of road
deicing chemicals. Abutments and piers were observed to have deterioration when there
was an adjacent roadway where road salt was applied. It was also noted that many of the
substructure elements in Illinois have been deteriorating due to leaking expansion joints
located above the member.
33

Figure 2.24 Illinois Response Results

The most common repair technique in Illinois was the formed concrete repair. As
in Wisconsin, the effectiveness of this repair was questioned. It was reported that, while
the repair is effective for a short period, there is a high failure rate within 5 to 10 years of
the repair. The success of this repair is highly dependent upon whether the true cause of
the deterioration had been addressed. If the source of the chloride contamination is
identified and remedied, then the effectiveness of the repair becomes much more reliable.
If the reinforcement continues to corrode, delamination and spalling will result and
ultimately cause the repair to fail.
The use of shotcrete was mentioned throughout Illinois because of its cost
effective nature and the ease with which it can be applied over large portions of the
structure. The problems noted with shotcrete repairs indicate that adequate bonding
between the shotcrete and existing concrete is not achieved. This problem has also been
observed with formed concrete repairs, but appears to be less frequent as the formed
concrete repairs are rated as more durable. The shotcrete (or sprayed-on concrete) repair
method is also favored for areas where there are accessibility issues. It was noted that
28%
29%
29%
14%
Illinois Substructure Deterioration
Cracking
Delamination
Spalling
Rebar Corrosion
34

riprap proved to be a reliable solution for scour issues, and no problems were recorded
for this repair type.
2.6.2 I ndiana
Indiana provided 6 responses to the survey, which was the second highest
concentration of responses after the state of Wisconsin. To manage and understand the
responses that were created, several different graphical representations of the results were
created. As in Wisconsin, the majority of deterioration issues reported from Indiana dealt
with concrete substructure members.
Figure 2.25 represents how the responses related to the different construction
materials. It can be appreciated from this image that concrete repairs accounted for 50%
of the reported rehabilitative efforts throughout Indiana. Due to the vast amount of
responses that noted repairs to concrete members, it became necessary to further
categorize the concrete deterioration that typically occurs throughout Indiana. Figure
2.26 indicates how often the different deterioration conditions were mentioned in relation
to one another. It can be noted that reinforcement corrosion causes the majority of
deterioration in concrete members. Reinforcement corrosion alone accounted for 17% of
the responses that were received. Reinforcement corrosion can lead to delamination,
spalling and eventually reinforcement exposure. If all of these responses are assumed to
be results of reinforcement corrosion, then the reinforcement corrosion accounts for 67%
of the issues that were reported through the survey. The other deterioration that was
noted in concrete was cracking, crushing and general concrete deterioration. These
35

failures could have also been results of reinforcement corrosion, but are not as directly
identifiable as delamination and spalling.

Figure 2.25 Indiana Response Results by Material

Figure 2.26 Indiana Response Results for Concrete

The Indiana maintenance engineers reported several general deterioration issues.
The general deterioration problems are not material specific in their description and could
be applicable to any number of bridges throughout the Midwest. As seen in Figure 2.25,
50%
13%
4%
33%
Indiana Substructure Deterioration
By Material
Concrete
Steel
Timber
General Issues
8%
8%
34%
17%
8%
8%
17%
Indiana Concrete Deterioration
Results
Cracking
Delamination
Spalling
Rebar Corrosion
Crushing
Rebar Exposure
36

the general deterioration that was described in the surveys accounted for 33% of the
deterioration issues that were reported.
Given that the general deterioration accounted for a large portion of the responses,
a chart was created to show how frequently each response occurred. Figure 2.27 provides
a graphical representation of the responses that were received. Scour was the most
common response, representing 50% of the responses in the general deterioration
category. Erosion, leaking joints, collision damage and settlement were also mentioned
in the surveys, and represented the other 50% of the responses. Leaking joints, while not
representing a very large portion of the responses, was seen as a very important
deterioration issue. Leaking joints allow the chlorides from de-icing chemicals to reach
substructure members. These chlorides are very detrimental to the reinforcement steel
embedded within the concrete, frequently causing corrosion. Since reinforcement
corrosion can cause a number of other deteriorations, leaking joints may be much more
detrimental than the 12% of responses initially indicates.

Figure 2.27 Indiana General Response Results
12%
50%
12%
13%
13%
Indiana General Deterioration Results
Erosion
Scour
Leaking Joints
Collision Damage
Settlement
37

There were several repair methods that were stated to be the most common repair
for concrete members throughout Indiana. One of the techniques mentioned was the use
of sprayed-on hydraulic concrete (sometimes referred to as shotcrete in this report). This
was a particularly common repair due to the high number of substructure elements the
hydraulic concrete could be used on effectively. The repair is typically conducted after
all loose concrete is removed to a depth of sound concrete. A reinforcement mat is then
anchor bolted to the member (typically a pier) to enhance the strength of the repair. Once
the mat is in place, the hydraulic concrete is sprayed over the mat. This repair method
was rated as moderately effective since it was not observed to have a very long life.
Another repair method that was documented for its frequent use throughout
Indiana on concrete members was a hand placed concrete surface repair. Multiple
surveys concluded that this repair technique was cosmetic in nature and did not provide
any structural benefit. The repairs are only completed to cover the spalled concrete and
cover the reinforcement. Since the cause of the reinforcement corrosion is not addressed
with this repair method, the newly placed concrete will eventually delaminate and spall.
The third repair method for concrete substructure members that was considered
common among the maintenance engineers of Indiana involved the use of cathodic
protection to prevent reinforcement corrosion. Sacrificial anode pucks can be placed
within a common concrete surface repair in order to stop the reinforcement corrosion.
This repair was seen as effective by the maintenance engineers given that it addressed the
root cause of the delamination and spalling, instead of simply covering the deteriorated
members. It was reported that this repair can last up to 20 years if the anode pucks are
correctly wired to the reinforcement.
38

In Indiana, cathodic repairs are usually repeated in 20 year intervals, since the
original anode will typically have disintegrated within that time span. If the anode lasts
the full 20 years, this will prevent any reinforcement corrosion from occurring during that
twenty-year period. It was reported that the use of cathodic protection systems are not
well known and many designers are not aware that they are an option for repairs. Despite
the general lack of knowledge on the products, both zinc anodes and cathodic protection
systems have been frequently used throughout Indiana and have been considered
successful.
The three most common repair techniques for deteriorated timber substructure
members in Indiana were to replace the deteriorated timber members, encase the timber
members in a concrete jacket, or to replace the entire structure. Since the use of timber as
a material is not common in modern roadway construction, many of the bridges that have
timber pilings are scheduled to be replaced. When the timber piles start to experience
structural deterioration, it is often more logical to update and replace the entire bridge
than to provide temporary repairs to outdated and deficient members. The timber pile
encasement method is documented in Figure 2.17, where the concrete was poured inside
a corrugated pipe. While this repair helps to protect the timber piling, it also prevents
future visual inspection of parts of the timber member. If deterioration of the member
were to continue, it would be very difficult to observe deterioration during inspections.
The consensus among Indiana maintenance engineers was that the amount of work
required for the repairs was not justified, since many of the timber bridges are becoming
structurally deficient.
39

The most common repair for steel substructure members in Indiana involves the
use of a jacket. Steel and concrete jackets have both been used frequently throughout
Indiana for deteriorated steel piling. These repairs have yielded a positive result as short
term repairs, but are not intended to be in place for long durations. The steel jacket
approach involves welding steel onto the existing member in order to counteract the
section loss and strengthen the member. The specific steel shape that is utilized will be a
result of the existing steel pile shape. The concrete encasement is similar to the method
that was followed for the timber piles. As with the timber pile repair, this covers the
original member and makes it very difficult to visually identify additional pile
deterioration and section loss.
The consensus among Indianas maintenance engineers was that a proper program
of maintenance and repair was the best and most effective way of implementing repairs.
If certain portions of the bridge are replaced on a regular basis, the deterioration may not
occur as frequently. Indiana attempts to replace expansion joints and slabs at least every
20 years. Proper joint maintenance is extremely important, since many substructure
problems are most often caused by leaking joints. Leaking joints can negatively affect
almost every portion of a bridge substructure, which is why they should be monitored and
replaced frequently. Proper inspection will also ensure that any issues that arise will be
noticed before deterioration starts to threaten the structural integrity of the substructure.
Two repairs were identified as the most effective throughout Indiana. The use of
riprap for scour repairs and the use of sacrificial anodes for concrete patch repair were
both documented as cost effective, long lasting repairs. Provided that riprap is placed
correctly, it has yielded very successful results throughout Indiana. If a footing or piling
40

is exposed, Indiana relies on the use of riprap to repair the substructure. They typically
use sheet piling and place large riprap around the exposed member in order to protect it.
This repair has proven to have a long life, but difficulty placing the sheet piling can
prevent its use in many situations.
Sacrificial anodes have also been utilized quite effectively throughout Indiana.
The applicability of a sacrificial zinc anode system is dependent upon the existing
chloride levels within the concrete member. Zinc anodes are most effective when placed
in a relatively low chloride environment. Indiana has experienced much success with
repairs of this type, which also rely on good quality patch material. It has been observed
that using concrete similar to the base concrete material is the most helpful for concrete
patch repairs.
If the existing chloride levels within the concrete are too high for the sacrificial
zinc anode system to be effective, Indiana typically utilizes one of two options. The first
option is that the bridge is used without any repair being made, and achieving the longest
service life possible without repairs before the bridge needs to be completely replaced.
Depending on the age and condition of the other elements, this may be a more cost
effective alternative. The second option that Indiana utilizes is the use of an impressed
current cathodic protection system. This is the most comprehensive corrosion control
choice and is very successful in mitigating the expansion of corrosion. This system relies
upon an induced current and has a rather high initial cost. If the chloride levels within the
existing concrete are concentrated enough to reduce the usefulness of sacrificial anodes,
and the rest of the bridge is still structurally sound, this option is feasible.
41

Indiana has observed the use of an impressed current cathodic protection system
to be cost effective if it is combined with chloride extraction and the rest of the bridge is
structurally capable of having an extended service life. For Bridge 12-64-5413B in
Indiana both a cathodic protection system and a sacrificial anode system were utilized for
the bridge repairs. These structures are two twin 6-span bridges on U.S. 12 over Burns
Ditch River in Porter County, Indiana. The bridges are prestressed concrete girder
bridges that are 285 feet long. Figure 2.28 shows how the impressed cathodic protection
system was utilized for piers 3, 4 and 5 on the structure. It can be seen in the figure that
the impressed cathodic system relies upon the use of a mesh anode embedded within the
concrete. This mesh was placed continuously around the pier in order to provide full
protection. The concrete used to embed the mesh was Class A, which is the concrete
typically used for piers and bents of bridges in Indiana. The electrical resistivity of the
concrete is crucial for this type of repair and was limited to less than 15,000 ohm-cm at
28 days. Epoxy mortars and bonding agents were not permitted to be used on this project
so as to not affect the resistivity requirement. The mesh anode was tack welded to a
current distribution bar, which helped to ensure that the impressed current travelled
throughout the entire mesh anode.
42

Figure 2.28 Indiana Impressed Cathodic Protection System Design (INDOT 2011)

The important distinction between these two bridge repairs was with the
impressed current cathodic protection system the anode mesh was not allowed to be in
contact with the rebar, whereas the sacrificial anode relied upon direct contact with the
steel reinforcement for its effectiveness. The sacrificial anodes for these bridges were
used on the girders, but still have relevance to substructure repairs. Figure 2.29 shows
how the zinc anodes were placed and how much protection was necessary to facilitate an
effective repair. Since the anodes were being placed on prestressed girders for this
bridge, no concrete was allowed to be removed in order to make the connection between
anode and reinforcement. This requirement made the placement and sizing of the anodes
more difficult than it would typically be for substructure members.
43

Figure 2.29 Indiana Sacrificial Anode System Design (INDOT 2011)

Depending on the placement of the anode, the required amount of zinc per foot of
length can vary depending on the amount of steel that needs to be protected. For the
anodes that were installed 6 inches on center on the end of the web of the girder 1.2
pounds of zinc per foot of length of anode was required since it was protecting a larger
area of reinforcement. Where concrete had spalled off of the girder and anodes were
being installed intermittently, only 0.25 pounds of zinc per foot of length of anode was
required. The amount of anodes required is typically calculated using tables provided by
specific manufacturers. These anodes are applicable to substructure repairs and would
typically be easier to install, since on most substructure elements concrete can be
removed to embed the anodes. For the sacrificial anode repair, electrical continuity is
crucial for corrosion protection and only electrical resistance welding is allowed to
connect the old and new steel reinforcement.
Three separate repair methods were identified as the least effective throughout
Indiana. The simple concrete surface repair was again identified as an inconsistent and
44

unreliable repair. The use of sprayed hydraulic concrete was cited as having a short
repair life. Also, the use of a silicone membrane to seal joints has been observed to have
an extremely short service life. While the joints are not substructure members, they are
frequently the cause of substructure deterioration and the correct maintenance and repair
of these members could prevent many of the issues that typically arise.
Concrete patching has been noted as an ineffective repair in many of the states
that were surveyed. Indiana noted that if concrete is patched without addressing the
cause of the deterioration, the patch becomes extremely unreliable. If the spalling is
caused by corrosion, and the chloride intrusion is not addressed, then the deterioration
can often resume and even increase the rate at which it occurs after the new concrete is
placed.
A lack of adhesion between the patch and the existing member has been
documented in Indiana and is believed to be the result of improper cleaning of the base
material. Concrete surface repair typically covers up the problem instead of fixing it, and
does nothing to stop the deterioration from occurring. Many of the maintenance
engineers in Indiana view concrete surface repair as solely a cosmetic repair. They have
not noticed any structural benefit from the repair and the inconsistency of the repair life
has made it unreliable.
The sprayed on hydraulic concrete repair was one of the more common repairs
completed throughout Indiana. Some of the maintenance engineers believed that this was
the least effective, while others did not identify the repair as being particularly unreliable.
After the hydraulic concrete was applied, additional cracking was noted on some of the
repairs. This cracking allowed water to penetrate through the newly placed concrete
45

repair. Since this repair method is typically used as a surface repair to protect steel
reinforcement from the environment, frequent cracking disrupts the protection. There is
reasonable concern that chlorides will enter through the cracks in the hydraulic concrete
and continue to corrode the reinforcing steel. As the reinforcing steel corrodes, the repair
will begin to delaminate and eventually spall.
Since joint maintenance has a direct result on substructure members, the repairs
that are commonly completed on joints need to be considered as a means of preventing
substructure damage. The quick and cost effective solution of using a silicone membrane
as a joint sealer has been noticed for its relatively short repair life. Maintenance
engineers have observed this repair failing within 5 to 10 years of the original placement.
The preferred solution for this problem in Indiana is to use a stainless steel expansion
joint that relies upon steel anchors for attachment. It has been observed that the stainless
steel expansion joint will last at least as long as the overlay, about 20 years. Despite the
higher cost of the stainless steel expansion joint, this repair may be the most cost
effective solution since it will cause less substructure deterioration due to its longevity.
2.6.3 Kentucky
The state of Kentucky provided one response to the survey. This response
identified scour as the major issue maintenance engineers must rectify. Scour can cause a
variety of other structural issues that need to be addressed, such as exposure of
foundation elements, undermining of the foundations and settlement. These deterioration
issues are typically discovered using sounding rods, but Kentucky is currently
investigating the use of the dispersive wave method, sonar and side imaging sonar as a
46

means of more effectively discovering scour problems. Side imaging sonar provides a
visual picture of the condition of the foundation and streambed and if the resolution of
the images is increased, it can be a very useful tool for maintenance engineers.
There are two common solutions to scour problems used throughout Kentucky.
The first solution, and the most widely incorporated, is the use of riprap. Kentucky
follows the guidelines put forth by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) when
deciding how to most effectively combat the scour issues. The FHWA publishes a
decision matrix in the document entitled Bridge Scour and Stream Instability
Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance (FHWA 2009). This
decision matrix is known as HEC 23 and provides a list of which solutions are most
appropriate for given conditions. The installation experience by state is also provided, so
it can be known which states are well versed in the given repair method.
Riprap is suitable for a wide number of scenarios and can be partially or fully
grouted depending on the severity of the scour. A good example of how Kentucky
combats scour can be seen in Figure 2.30. The structure is bridge 002B00021N on KY
585 in Allen County. For this particular bridge, the use of a geotextile fabric and riprap
was relied upon to protect the substructure from scour. The riprap was placed at a
minimum of 3 feet thick at a 2:1 slope along the existing ground line. The riprap was
extended 15 feet into the streambed and the geotextile fabric was placed 10 feet into the
streambed. The previous repair represents the common use of riprap throughout
Kentucky and one of the more common solutions for scour throughout the states that
were surveyed.
47

Figure 2.30 Kentucky Scour Countermeasures (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
2011)

The second solution to scour conditions that Kentucky has used in the past
involves precast concrete. The specific product that Kentucky is familiar with is known
as A-jacks. This product, seen in Figure 2.31, is precast concrete with a complex shape
that helps it lock into place with other A-jacks or riprap. This product is used in
Kentucky since it is a more effective solution than the use of riprap alone. The initial
cost of the A-jack system has prevented it from becoming a common repair throughout
the United States. If the scour issues are severe enough, then the A-jack system becomes
cost-effective. The use of A-jacks is viewed in Kentucky as a permanent solution to
scour problems. No deterioration or further scour issues have been noticed once the A-
jacks have been placed along the substructure. There is some concern regarding
corrosion of the A-jack reinforcement in addition to corrosion of the steel banding that
48

contains all of the A-jacks units. According to the HEC-23 guidelines the use of
interlocking articulated blocks, such as the A-jack system, is well suited for local scour
issues around abutments and piers, floodplain and channel contraction scour, lateral
stream instability, and overtopping flow of approach embankments (FHWA 2009). The
wide varieties of applications for the precast concrete blocks make them a convenient and
reliable solution in Kentucky despite the initial investment that is required.

Figure 2.31 A-jack Precast Concrete (Poseidon Alliance Ltd. 2011)

If scour is severe enough that it has undermined portions of a bridge substructure,
then Kentucky relies upon more invasive measures than the use of riprap or A-jacks. A
good example of the solutions to these problems can be seen in the rehabilitation for
Bridge 090B00100N which carries KY 84 over the Rolling Fork River Slough. A
detailed drawing of the structure is shown in Figure 2.32. Due to the scour that occurred,
the bent wall of Bent 2 of this structure was undermined a maximum of 13.5 feet. This
undermining exposed the steel HP 12x53 piles and required a rather immediate
rehabilitative effort. Kentuckys proposed repair plan involved installing a cofferdam
49

upriver of the structure, excavating a channel to bedrock around the two bents, and
placing a 2 foot thick concrete footing on the bedrock. The HP 12x53 piles were encased
in new Class A concrete that extended the bent wall to the footing. This concrete
encasement of the steel piles and the new concrete footing can be seen in Figure 2.33.
Epoxy coated steel reinforcement with a clear cover of 1.5 inches were placed within the
concrete surrounding the HP 12x53 piles. The new footing on the bedrock will provide
stability for the piles and the concrete encasement will help prevent pile deterioration
from occurring. This repair procedure is much more costly than the use of riprap or A-
jacks. Since this bridge was experiencing a severe scour situation, this new footing
construction appeared to be the best option available to Kentucky at the time.
50

Figure 2.32 Kentucky Bridge 090B00100N Plan (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
2011)
51

Figure 2.33 Kentucky Bridge 090B00100N Footing and Pile Encasement (Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet 2011)
52

2.6.4 Minnesota
The state of Minnesota provided one response to the survey. Minnesota deals
with a wide variety of deterioration issues that are a result of its severe winter climate.
Abutment tipping is a common problem within Minnesotas infrastructure. The
abutments contract when the temperature decreases, which causes material to fall into the
voids created by this contraction. When the abutment eventually expands back to its full
size, the material that has settled causes the abutment to tip and place rotational forces on
the superstructure.
Another problem that is a result of the cold winters in Minnesota is the
deterioration of concrete columns. If the rebar cages are placed too close to the surface
of the concrete, the column will deteriorate due to chlorides from road salt reaching the
steel reinforcement. Minnesota has also encountered problems that are not a direct result
of the climate. Scour has occurred on many bridges throughout Minnesota. It appears
that the scour is a result of contractors being allowed to build haul roads out into river
beds upstream or downstream of the bridge. Once these roads are constructed Minnesota
has had difficulty recovering the original quality of the river. They have no ideal solution
to solve the problems that the haul roads create. Another typical problem that Minnesota
has encountered with bridges spanning over rivers is the deterioration of the bents. Steel
bents have been observed to corrode and have experienced section loss at the waterline.
Timber bents commonly rot at the soil or waterline. Since the majority of the timber
bridges in Minnesota are more than 50 years old, the timber pier caps frequently crush
and the abutments tip. The abutments are believed to be tipping because the timber piles
53

were not battered when they were placed, and the hydraulic and soil pressure from the
roadway act on the abutment.
One of the most common repair techniques in Minnesota addresses concrete
columns. When there is minor deterioration present on the column, the loose concrete is
chipped away, the steel reinforcement is cleaned by sandblasting, a rust preventer and
bonding agent is applied, then either concrete or sprayed hydraulic concrete is applied to
the surface. If the deterioration on the concrete column is severe, forms are used in order
to increase the amount of concrete cover protecting the reinforcing steel.
Minnesota uses a preventative maintenance method in order to protect the
concrete columns before deterioration begins. For concrete columns that are in snow
splash zones a special surface finish is applied to the concrete. The surface finish that
Minnesota utilizes is applied within 5 years of the initial bridge construction. The finish
needs to be applied relatively soon after construction so chlorides are prevented from
reaching the steel reinforcement as much as possible. Due to the severe winter climate
that Minnesota experiences, the surface finish only lasts between 4 and 5 years.
Two repairs were identified as the most effective in the state of Minnesota. The
first repair that Minnesota has had success with is the use of riprap and filter fabric for
scour. The placement and selection of the riprap and filter fabric is designed for the
specific deterioration that the bridge is experiencing. The ability to modify the repair
based on the bridge conditions has made this very successful throughout Minnesota. The
second repair that has been noted in Minnesota for its reliability is also the restoration
that was mentioned as the most common fix for concrete columns. The concrete repair
properly cleans the reinforcing steel, ensures adequate bonding and mitigates any new
54

chlorides from entering the concrete. When this repair is properly conducted it rectifies
the aforementioned issues, which commonly cause further concrete member
deterioration, and it has proven to be very reliable for the state.
The least effective repair for the state of Minnesota is the inappropriate utilization
of special surface finishes. Surface finishes typically incorporated within Minnesota are
silane based penetrating concrete sealers that are sprayed on to prevent water and
chlorides from entering the concrete. In order for the sealer to be effective, the concrete
must become completely saturated with the chemical. Minnesota has attempted to use
surface finishes after advanced deterioration has been noticed in the concrete columns.
This repair does nothing to strengthen the column and does not adequately address the
cause of deterioration. The deterioration of the concrete columns is usually caused by
chlorides corroding the reinforcement steel. While surface finishes help to prevent new
chlorides from entering the column, they do not remove existing chlorides from the
column. Since there will still be chlorides within the concrete, the reinforcement
deterioration will continue. Then as the concrete begins to crack and spall, more
chlorides will be allowed into the concrete. This continued deterioration has proven to
engineers within Minnesota that surface finishes are only viable if the concrete is in
relatively good condition.
2.6.5 Missouri
The state of Missouri provided one response to the survey. Missouri deals with
many substructure issues that are a result of leaking expansion devices. The deterioration
is primarily located on beam caps and columns, which is a result of road deicing
55

chemicals leaking through the expansion devices. These substructure components,
typically concrete, display a wide variety of deterioration issues. The issues that
maintenance engineers have observed as a result of leaking expansion devices are
cracking, delamination, spalling, and leaching. The other deterioration that is becoming
increasingly common in Missouri is section loss of piling. The pilings beneath bents and
abutments have both been observed to suffer from section loss. The section loss of steel
pilings is a growing issue for Missouri.
The most common repair type in Missouri is the use of a concrete patch.
Concrete patches are used for a wide variety of members and situations in Missouri. If
the deterioration is in an area where critical bearing support is required, then Missouri
relies upon the use of formed repairs. These repairs have been noted for their long life
and reliability compared to the other patching options. When the area of deterioration is
not bearing critical, then Missouri will use unformed repairs or rely upon hydraulic
sprayed concrete. These repairs are not ideal, since they are not seen as effective or long-
lasting. The last patch repair that is used in Missouri is an epoxy sealer. Epoxy sealers
are used in areas where the repair is more cosmetic and not necessarily structurally
required.
The most effective repair in Missouri is the use of a penetrating epoxy sealer.
This sealer is used to seal off cracks and is a type of preventive maintenance that
Missouri relies upon to stave off further deterioration. When concrete substructure
members are observed to crack, they are thoroughly cleaned and the penetrating epoxy
sealer is applied. This sealer will prevent any future road deicing chemicals or water
from entering the crack. This repair has a rather short life and needs to be resealed every
56

5 to 7 years. If the repair is not constantly maintained, then chlorides will have an open
path to reach the reinforcement steel. The epoxy sealer prevents the need for a more
invasive and expensive repair. If it is appropriately placed and maintained the
penetrating epoxy sealer has proven to be cost-effective and reliable for the state of
Missouri.
The least effective repair that Missouri has encountered involved the use of
sprayed hydraulic concrete or unformed concrete repairs. Missouri typically utilizes this
repair method when the damaged member is overhead. When damage occurs on
overhead members it can be very difficult to place formwork. The lack of accessibility
makes the use of sprayed hydraulic concrete common for these repairs. The problem that
Missouri has noticed with these repairs is that there is not enough adequate bonding
between the old and new concrete. The new concrete does not have anything to grab on
to, and has to rely on the bond that exists between new and old concrete. Given that the
restoration is typically overhead, a failure of this repair could potentially be disastrous.
2.6.6 New York
The state of New York provided one response to the survey that was distributed.
The most typical problem reported in the Albany, New York area is reinforcement
corrosion. This reinforcement corrosion has been observed to be a result of chloride
intrusion. The chlorides are most likely a result of the deicing chemicals that are used
throughout the winter. Reinforcement corrosion can contribute to many other types of
deterioration such as cracking, delamination and spalling. New Yorks Department of
57

Transportation has identified that chloride intrusion is the cause of the vast majority of
their deterioration issues.
There are two repair techniques that were identified as the most frequent repairs
completed in New York. The first technique that was mentioned as common in New
York was the simple formed concrete repair. This repair consists of building formwork
around the existing concrete member and pouring in concrete. This is the method that
New York relies upon for large repairs because of the increased bonding that it offers.
The second repair technique that is common in New York is the use of low volume
shotcrete. This repair technique is applicable to many situations that are encountered in
this region. Shotcrete is placed much quicker than a formed concrete repair, but it
requires an experienced operator to ensure that the repair is done correctly. There has
been some difficulty in New York when trying to use this technique for large repairs, and
therefore it is not considered suitable for larger areas.
The most effective repair technique in New York is a specific application of the
formed concrete repair. After the deteriorated concrete is removed and the surface is
adequately cleaned, the concrete is poured inside the formwork. The most reliable way to
conduct this repair is to use concrete that is the same mix as the original concrete used to
construct the member. New York has observed that replacing concrete with the same
concrete mix produces much more reliable results than using a different type of concrete.
An important step in this repair is to take action to prevent future deterioration from
occurring.
The typical cause of substructure deterioration in New York is leaking expansion
joints. Leaking joints allow chlorides from road deicing chemicals to enter the concrete
58

and corrode the reinforcing steel. The first step in protecting the substructure from future
damage is to stop the joint from leaking, typically done by replacing the expansion joint.
After the joint is repaired, New Yorks Department of Transportation usually seals the
concrete with an impermeable water barrier, such as silane. Silane is applied to
substructure concrete members throughout New York because it prevents foreign
materials, specifically chlorides, from entering the concrete and causing damage to the
steel reinforcement. The maintenance engineers in New York have noticed that this is
the best way to keep chlorides from attacking the reinforcement, and provides the longest
repair life for concrete members.
The least effective repair technique in New York is the option to take no action.
Typically minor deterioration may not be seen as requiring repair. The maintenance
engineers within New York have noticed that minor deterioration issues typically allow
more severe deterioration to occur. A small crack in a concrete member will allow more
chlorides to enter within the concrete. These chlorides can cause reinforcement
corrosion, which will lead to delamination, spalling and further cracking. New York has
recognized that ignoring a small problem will lead to much larger deterioration issues in
the future. It is much more cost-effective for New Yorks engineers to fix problems
before a massive repair project is required. Proper and frequent inspections are a
necessity in order to document minor deterioration before it becomes severe
deterioration.

59

2.6.7 Ohio
The state of Ohio provided one response to the survey. Through this response it
was observed that the Ohio Department of Transportation deals with a wide variety of
deterioration issues. One issue that Ohio has documented is the cracking of concrete
substructure members on various bridges. Cracking has resulted in further types of
deterioration and is important to address. Spalling of concrete underneath the bearing
masonry plate has also been observed throughout Ohios infrastructure. This concrete
deterioration is most likely a result of leaking from expansion joints or the use of poor
quality concrete (ODOT 2012). The delamination and spalling on stub abutments was
another problem observed in Ohio, which could be a result of leaking expansion joints.
The Ohio maintenance engineers have also observed section loss and corrosion
holes in steel piling at the waterline. The Ohio Department of Transportation determined
that section loss caused by the continual wetting and drying of steel and the inability to
clean and paint the steel effectively at the waterline are significant issues leading to
deterioration (ODOT 2012).
The last substructure deterioration scenario that was observed throughout Ohio
was settlement. Settlement can be caused by a variety of issues, and the chosen repair
needs to address the true cause of the deterioration. Observing and documenting the
deterioration is a crucial step in Ohios bridge maintenance. Every bridge throughout
Ohio is inspected on an annual basis to observe deterioration.
The most common repair that is done throughout Ohio is a simple concrete patch
repair. This repair is most effective if the concrete is replaced with the same mix of
concrete as the original material. It was only seen as reliable if the drainage is diverted
60

away from the substructure member and the corrosion is cleaned off of the steel.
Addressing the root cause of the concrete deterioration helps increase the life of the
repair.
2.6.8 Oklahoma
The state of Oklahoma provided one response to the survey. This response
mentioned that there are six different deterioration problems that commonly occur
throughout Oklahoma. These common deterioration problems are corrosion, traffic or
debris impact, scour, rot, infestation and steel section loss. Oklahoma has a variety of
materials that commonly experience deterioration. Many of the deterioration problems
that Oklahoma encounters are on bridges that span over rivers.
Given that there are many different types of deterioration on Oklahoma bridges,
there are also many different repairs that are considered common throughout the state.
The first repair that is commonly performed in Oklahoma is the use of shotcrete. The
maintenance engineers within Oklahoma see the use of this type of repair as an effective
option for the short term. The repair life for shotcrete is not very long, but it can be
placed relatively fast and can easily cover cosmetic issues. Another common repair is the
use of a Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) wrap with shotcrete. The combination of these
two repairs increases the estimated repair life compared to the use of shotcrete without
any additional products. This method has been quite effective throughout Oklahoma
since the FRP wrap holds the shotcrete in place and protects the concrete from chloride
intrusion.
61

The use of timber pile splints is another common repair in Oklahoma. Timber
pile splints are viewed as an effective short term repair. A timber pile encasement is a
longer term repair that is also effective. Oklahoma has used several different materials to
encase the timber piles, including the use of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP). If
the deterioration is severe enough, then the state has replaced both steel and timber piles
on several bridges. This is an effective long term repair since it completely removes the
deteriorated element. The last repair that Oklahoma maintenance engineers frequently
encounter is concrete encasement of a concrete column. In order to make this repair
effective and long lasting, Oklahoma typically relies upon mild steel reinforcement and
sacrificial anodes. The sacrificial anodes help to prevent corrosion from occurring on the
reinforcement of the original concrete column, which extends the life of the repair.
Oklahoma maintenance engineers have observed several successful encasement
repairs throughout the state. Two variations of encasement have been used on concrete
substructure members in Oklahoma. The first method that has proven to be successful is
the use of shotcrete and a fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) wrap. The shotcrete is used to
replace all of the concrete that has deteriorated, and the FRP wrap keeps the shotcrete in
place. The FRP wrap has the added benefit of protecting the concrete member from any
additional chloride intrusion. Since shotcrete has been identified in other states as having
poor adhesion, the confinement provided by the FRP wrap provides a solution to this
frequently documented problem. The second method of repair that Oklahoma uses for
concrete substructure members is a specialized concrete encasement. When a concrete
member is encased in concrete, sacrificial anodes or inhibitors are embedded within the
concrete. An example of this repair performed on a pier cap is shown in Figure 2.34. In
62

the figure, the anodes are wired to the steel reinforcement and spaced based upon a
manufacturers spacing table. These anodes provide an added amount of protection for
the steel reinforcement and extend the life of the repair by reducing steel corrosion.

Figure 2.34 Oklahoma Sacrificial Anode Placement (W. Peters personal

The least effective repair that was observed in Oklahoma was the use of shotcrete
without any other product. Shrinkage cracks frequently occur in these types of repairs.
Water and chlorides from deicing chemicals penetrate through these cracks and cause the
repairs to spall. The repair frequently fails because it does not address the cause of the
deterioration. The chlorides that are already embedded within the concrete and
reinforcement will continue to cause corrosion and severely shorten the life of the repair.
This deterioration, combined with the fact that shotcrete has poor adhesion, has made the
repair very unreliable. When shotcrete is used with other elements, such as FRP, it
63

becomes more reliable and a longer lasting repair. Oklahoma has not had success using
shotcrete as a standalone repair.
2.6.9 Tennessee
The state of Tennessee provided one response to the survey. The majority of
deterioration problems in Tennessee are caused by leaking expansion joints or inadequate
concrete cover being placed around the reinforcement steel. Both of these problems can
affect multiple substructure members and cause various forms of deterioration. In
Tennessee these problems have been observed to cause reinforcement corrosion which
has led to cracking and spalling of various substructure elements. The maintenance
engineers within Tennessee have also observed that pier cap damage is a common
problem. Corroded and seized steel expansion bearings which pull on the anchor bolts
cast into the concrete substructure are thought to be the cause of the deterioration. The
last type of deterioration that is common in Tennessee is section loss of steel piles. This
problem has been observed in the areas where steel piles are in contact with the ground
line.
There are several repairs that are commonly conducted throughout the state of
Tennessee. A simple concrete surface repair appeared to be the most frequent.
Tennessee typically removes the deteriorated concrete, cleans the steel reinforcement,
and then places new concrete. Another common repair throughout Tennessee is the use
of riprap for scour conditions. This has been a successful tool in Tennessee for fighting
scour. For specific scour deterioration that is around a footing, Tennessee has used a seal
64

footing combined with riprap to effectively treat scour. The use of a steel shell has also
been a common repair in the state of Tennessee.
If a concrete column has had deterioration issues, then after completing a concrete
surface repair, Tennessee will encase the column in a steel shell. The steel shell will
provide an additional level of confinement for the repair. Since many of the simple
concrete surface repairs and shotcrete repairs have been reported as having inadequate
adhesion, the steel collar will help to keep the new concrete in place. The added benefit
of the shell is that it will provide an extra barrier to prevent chlorides from entering the
concrete and attacking the steel reinforcement. A somewhat similar approach is taken to
repairing steel pile bents in Tennessee. Tennessee maintenance engineers have observed
steel piles to experience deterioration at the ground line. To protect the steel piles from
further section loss, Tennessee usually casts a concrete collar around the steel pile bent at
the ground line. This repair has been successful for Tennessee and is considered
common practice among the state maintenance engineers.
The most effective approach to fixing deterioration problems in Tennessee has
been to ensure that the cause of the deterioration is addressed. If a concrete member is
spalling due to corrosion reinforcement, the most effective approach is to verify what is
causing the corrosion. If this corrosion is caused by a leaking joint, then Tennessee will
repair the leaking joint and the spalled concrete. A repair can be made much more
reliable if both the cause and effect of the deterioration are addressed.
The least effective repair that Tennessee has attempted is when the cause of the
deterioration is not adequately addressed. As with the most effective repair procedures,
identifying the root cause of deterioration is crucial to a repairs life in Tennessee.
65

Preventing the cause of deterioration from occurring will lengthen a repair life and make
the repairs as cost-effective as possible.
2.6.10 Virginia
The state of Virginia provided one response to the survey. Through this response
it was determined that Virginia experiences many of the same deterioration problems as
Wisconsin. The cause of the deterioration problems in Virginia can be attributed to salt
water exposure, whereas the same damage in Wisconsin is caused by application of road
deicing chemicals. Once the chlorides from the various sources penetrate the concrete,
the resulting deterioration is very similar. Virginia maintenance engineers have identified
a problem of salt scaling occurring on concrete substructure members. This salt scaling
has been observed as a result of salt and water leaking through expansion joints and salt
water exposure to multiple substructure elements. Both of these sources of chlorides
have also contributed to steel reinforcement corrosion. Once the corrosion of the
reinforcement begins, a new variety of deterioration issues, such as delamination and
spalling, will occur on the substructure members.
There are several common repairs that Virginias maintenance engineers have
relied upon for substructure members. Virginia frequently relies upon the use of
shotcrete to repair concrete substructure members. Good workmanship was identified as
a necessity for this repair to be effective. The proper design and application of the
shotcrete repair is also important in order to ensure that Virginia is utilizing the best
repair option for the deteriorated member. Virginia has also relied upon the use of self-
consolidating concrete for several of their concrete repairs, and has found it to be
66

relatively reliable. The use of pier jackets has been thoroughly utilized throughout
Virginia, but has had questionable results due to the salt water. The salt water provides a
constant source of chlorides that will attack steel members that are in contact with the
substance. This becomes a serious consideration when Virginias engineers select
appropriate repairs for substructure members. The last repair that was mentioned in the
surveys as being common practice in Virginia was the implementation of a galvanic
cathodic protection system. Similar to other states, the engineers within Virginia have
found that when salt is completely removed from concrete members the repairs have
much better longevity. Galvanic cathodic protection systems have been used on salt
contaminated concrete throughout Virginia and have produced very positive results.
The most effective repair technique that was described for Virginia was a concrete
surface repair that utilized shotcrete in conjunction with cathodic protection systems.
The procedure for this repair involves removing deteriorated concrete, cleaning steel and
surrounding concrete, and lastly placing shotcrete. If chloride contamination is an issue
on the concrete member, then Virginia will apply a cathodic protection system before
applying the shotcrete. This repair is currently the most effective option in Virginia
because it addresses the cause of the deterioration. Proper surface preparation is a crucial
element in this repair because it removes many of the chlorides that caused the original
deterioration. The cathodic protection system is placed in the concrete members that
have significant amounts of chlorides, and will provide continued protection once the
repair is completed. This repair is successful for Virginia because it stops the current
deterioration and attempts to prevent future deterioration from sacrificing the integrity of
the repair.
67

The least successful repair that has been utilized in Virginia involves placing
jackets around piers. The maintenance engineers in Virginia have observed that this
repair has an extremely short service life. The relatively quick failure of this repair is
believed to be a result of the fact that the repair covers up the deterioration. This repair
appears to have more of an aesthetic result than any structural value in the current way
that it is being completed. The corrosion of the reinforcement in the pier had a tendency
to continue after the repair was completed. The concrete that had been contaminated
with chlorides was never removed so there was nothing to stop the deterioration from
continuing. The ongoing deterioration, combined with the fact that there was no longer
an option of visually inspecting the original member, have made this repair questionable
for further use within Virginia.
2.6.11 Washington
The state of Washington provided one response to the survey. Through this
response it was determined that Washington has several unique deterioration issues.
During a time period ranging from the 1930s to 1956, there were many creosote treated
timber bridges constructed within Washington. Many of these bridges are still standing
and have provided unique issues for the maintenance engineers within Washington. The
timber caps of these structures frequently need to be replaced or encapsulated. When the
timber piles have deteriorated to the point that repair is required, then the state will
typically remove a portion of the pile and replace it with steel. The next issue that
frequently occurs on Washington bridges is scour. Due to the wide variety of scour
concerns that the Washington maintenance engineers have encountered, there are several
68

different solutions. The repair options are to utilize riprap to protect the piers, to use
barbs to redirect the flow, and to use engineered log jams to protect the abutments. Since
Washington has bridges that extend over salt water, protecting steel from chloride attack
has been a serious concern. In order to protect concrete piles and columns, the concrete
members are typically encased with either a grouted steel jacket or a fiberglass jacket.
Both of these repairs are intended to act as a barrier between the steel reinforcement and
the salt water, but will also frequently prevent further visual inspections from occurring
on the deteriorated member. The rest of the problems that Washington maintenance
engineers typically have to address are related to spalling concrete. Washington
implements a simple concrete patching procedure to address spalls, and has had no
further deterioration issues.
The most common repair that is conducted in Washington is repair of deteriorated
timber caps and piles. Due to environmental regulations, Washington can no longer
utilize creosote treated timber for repairs. Steel has been implemented as a means of
encapsulating the damaged timber cap without introducing dangerous toxins into the
water. This repair procedure has been effective because the old cap does not need to be
removed and the bridge does not need to be jacked for any part of the rehabilitative
process. Since timber piles can no longer be replaced in kind, Washington now relies
upon the use of 12 inch diameter round steel piling. This meets the environmental
regulations and does not require Washington to construct temporary bents for the repair.
The use of steel piling in place of treated timber has been quite successful for
Washington, and it is believed that the steel members last much longer than their timber
counterparts.
69

There are several repairs throughout Washington that have been identified for
being successful. Scour is a major issue in Washington, so the maintenance engineers
have spent time determining the best repair methods for various situations. The proper
sizing of riprap is crucial for many of the scour repairs in Washington. Many of the scour
holes that occur are filled with properly sized riprap. When the piers need to be
protected, Washington has used barbs to redirect the water flow away from the piers. If
the piers are located along a bank, then an engineered log jam is utilized. Engineered log
jams are seen as an environmentally friendly way to protect the piers without relying
upon riprap. On rare occasions, check dams have been used in streams as a weapon
against scour.
Another frequent problem for substructure members in Washington is cracking of
concrete. The typical repair for concrete cracking is epoxy injection. There have been no
issues with this repair in Washington and it appears to be a cost-effective option. Due to
the salt water that many bridges encounter, concrete spalling is a major deterioration
problem. The spalls are typically patched after being thoroughly cleaned and treated. If
the spall is on a pile in salt water, then Washington maintenance engineers will usually
design a jacket. Steel and fiberglass jackets have been utilized to protect the steel
reinforcement from chlorides. If there is a steel member that has experienced corrosion,
then Washingtons engineers typically have two options. If the deterioration is relatively
mild, then the steel can be cleaned and painted. If there is severe deterioration or section
loss present, then the steel member is often replaced. This is a much more costly
procedure, so it is important that the deterioration is documented at an early stage.
70

There are two repairs that were identified as the least successful throughout
Washington. When riprap of the incorrect size is used, it can be an extremely ineffective
repair. Washingtons engineers have attempted using riprap that was too small for the
force of the flow and have found that it will wash out very quickly. The relatively
immediate failure of this repair makes it crucial to select the correct size of riprap before
it is placed. Another ineffective repair that has given Washington problems is the use of
check dams. Check dams have been constructed using rock that was not rigid enough.
This has also resulted in a fast deterioration. Both of these repairs could be successful if
they are designed correctly. Washingtons engineers have had successful versions of
these repairs, but the achievement is primarily reliant upon the decisions made during the
design of the repair.
2.7 Concluding Remarks
To better understand the results from the distributed survey, the most and least
effective repair responses from each state were compiled. The repair that was identified
as the most effective was the use of riprap to combat scour. Through the survey, 21% of
the respondents indicated that riprap was the most effective and reliable repair. The
graphical breakdown of the responses is included in Figure 2.35. There were 12 different
repairs that were mentioned for their effective nature throughout the survey. The repairs
ranked in order of how often they were mentioned are: riprap, concrete surface repair,
concrete encasement, FRP wrap, sacrificial anode embedment, shotcrete, penetrating
epoxy sealer, steel collars on a timber member, concrete encasement of timber members,
71

pier wall construction around timber members, replacing wing walls, and preplaced
concrete aggregate.

Figure 2.35 Most Frequently Identified Effective Repairs

The effectiveness of any given repair is often dependent upon the conditions in
which it is utilized. Many of the repairs that were mentioned for their effective nature
were also identified as the least effective repair. Concrete surface repair was the most
mentioned ineffective repair, and accounted for 40% of the responses. As identified in
many of the survey responses the concrete surface repair has a high failure rate. This was
believed to be a result of poor adhesion between the patch and the base material. Not
addressing the true cause of the deterioration proved to be extremely detrimental to the
life of the repair. Many times corrosion would continue after the repair was completed
and would cause the concrete to delaminate and spall. Several survey responses
72

identified the concrete surface repair as a cosmetic repair and did not see it offering any
structural benefit to the bridge.
Figure 2.36 displays how often repairs were identified for their ineffective nature.
The repairs listed in order of how often they were mentioned are: concrete surface repair,
shotcrete, taking no action, penetrating epoxy sealer, concrete encasement of timber
members, silicone membrane joint sealers, inappropriate use of surface finishes, check
dams, and incorrectly sized riprap. Concrete surface repair and shotcrete were mentioned
frequently in both the most and least effective categories. Both of these repairs were
mentioned much more frequently for their ineffective nature than for being effective
repairs. The appropriate use and selection of materials may help increase the perceived
efficacy of a given repair method. For example, several states noted the poor bonding
between concrete and sprayed hydraulic concrete, indicating that it may not be an
appropriate choice for an overhead repair. When bond to the existing concrete is
considered, Virginia has experienced better performance with a self-consolidating
concrete than with sprayed hydraulic concrete.
Many of the repairs were noted for failing because the true cause of the
deterioration was not adequately addressed. Some of the repairs fix the effect of the
deterioration, but fail to restore the member to its original state. If the deterioration is not
prevented, then it will continue and cause the repair to fail. The adequate selection and
design of repairs is critical to ensuring that they have a long service life. Understanding
the sequence of events that leads to visual deterioration will help maintenance engineers
select the most appropriate repair for any given problem.

73

Figure 2.36 Most Frequently Identified Ineffective Repairs

74

CHAPTER 3 COMMON WISCONSIN SUBSTRUCTURE
DETERIORATION
The research team made several trips to bridges in Wisconsin where substructure
deterioration was present to document the various types of deterioration that the
Southeast and Southwest regions of WisDOT typically encounter. WisDOT regional
maintenance engineers provided tours for the research team and provided much of the
information included regarding the inspected bridge substructures. Many of the issues
seen in these tours appear to be fairly widespread throughout the rest of the state as
confirmed by the results of the survey that was distributed to the maintenance engineers
discussed in the previous chapter. These site visits were important to document the
deterioration problems and to observe the effectiveness of various repair techniques. The
present chapter will outline these site visits and summarize the substructure deterioration
scenarios most often encountered.
3.1 Bridge B-40-0115
The first bridge visited was B-40-0115. This bridge supports IH-43 in the city of
Glendale in Milwaukee County. It was constructed over a railroad, which has since been
removed. The bridge is 1,468 feet long and consists of 12 spans. This bridge was
constructed in 1962 and has started experiencing deterioration on multiple substructure
elements. WisDOT personnel stated that this bridge has the most severe substructure
rehabilitation needs of any of the bridges within Milwaukee County. According to a
sufficiency rating calculation from the inspection, the substructure rating is 4. A rating of
4 indicates that the substructure is in poor condition, experiencing advanced section loss,
75

deterioration, spalling or scour. Many of the reasons that the substructure was rated so
low can be seen in the documentation provided.
The north slope embankment for bridge B-40-0115 is composed of concrete
blocks or tiles. It is currently identified as experiencing major deterioration. Portions of
the slope embankment have collapsed as evidenced by Figures 3.1 and 3.2. The slope
embankment failure was caused by erosion of the soil beneath the concrete blocks. The
erosion was approximately 2-4 feet deep and covered a 10-foot by 30-foot plan area.
According to an inspection from March 16, 2011 a spalled median barrier wall was
thought to instigate the erosion. The spalled median barrier wall allowed runoff from the
bridge deck to land on the slope protection, causing the subsequent erosion of the slope
embankment. The recommended repair from the inspection was to fill in the missing
subgrade beneath the tiles/blocks and replace the damaged portions of the slope
embankment, since the spalled median barrier had previously been repaired. Erosion
issues were noted throughout several of the other bridges that were visited, but to a much
lesser extent.

Figure 3.1 B-40-0115 Slope Embankment Failure
76

Figure 3.2 B-40-0115 Slope Embankment Failure

The abutments for bridge B-40-0115 are sill-type abutments and have experienced
deterioration issues mostly due to road deicing chemicals leaking through the damaged
expansion joint in the superstructure. Sill abutments are common throughout
Wisconsins infrastructure network because they are the least expensive and easiest to
construct abutment types (WisDOT 2010). The chloride intrusion has also caused rebar
corrosion, as evidenced by the cracking and spalling that is seen in Figures 3.3 and 3.4.
Figure 3.3 shows the horizontal cracks that exist at the beam seat of the north abutment.
Figure 3.4 shows the delamination and exposed reinforcement that is also occurring at
multiple beam seats at the north abutment.
The common repair technique used for this issue was concrete patching since it
was not a critical repair. Most of the substructure issues that bridge B-40-0115 is
experiencing are related to pier column and pier cap deterioration, and there is
approximately $1,000,000 worth of substructure work necessary to repair all of the issues
77

that are present in this structure. Since there is no roadway present beneath the structure,
almost all of the deterioration occurs due to water and chlorides from deicing chemicals
applied to the roadway above penetrating through the concrete bridge deck and traveling
through the expansion joints in the bridge superstructure.

Figure 3.3 B-40-0115 Cracking of Sill Abutment

Figure 3.4 B-40-0115 Spalling of Sill Abutment
78

Pier cap deterioration was fairly widespread throughout the structure and can be
seen in Figures 3.5 and 3.6. In Figure 3.5 chlorides penetrated through the entire pier cap
and caused delamination on the bottom reinforcement. Figure 3.6 shows the result of
corrosion of the reinforcement on the side of a pier cap. In addition to the delamination
that was widespread on the concrete caps, there was heavy rust staining present as noted
in Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.5 B-40-0115 Pier Cap Spalling

Figure 3.6 B-40-0115 Pier Cap Spalling and Cracking
79

Figure 3.7 B-40-0115 Rust Staining on Pier Cap

There are 88 pier columns in Bridge B-40-0115, with a typical diameter of three
feet. The pier columns have severe deterioration due to reinforcement corrosion. There
is extensive delamination present that exposes the reinforcement. Figure 3.8 provides a
visual of one of the delaminations, which occurred on the lower half of Column 6 at Pier
1. As evidenced by the heavy rust staining and cracking on the top of the column, this
deterioration was most likely due to a leaking expansion joint in the bridge
superstructure. A more detailed image of this particular column is provided in Figure
3.9.
There is 650 feet of concrete pier wall in Bridge B-40-0115. These pier walls are
experiencing severe delamination and cracking. The delamination has caused spalling for
many of the pier walls. The spalling shown in Figure 3.10 is typical of what the pier
walls are experiencing throughout the bridge. Figure 3.10 displays one of the more
advanced stages of deterioration present on the pier walls.

80

(3.8) (3.9)

Figures 3.8 and 3.9 B-40-0115 Pier Column Delamination

Figure 3.10 B-40-0115 Pier Wall Delamination

81

Bridge B-40-0115 has also experienced several repairs on deteriorated
substructure members. Figure 3.11 shows a successful concrete repair over the entire
length of a column. The age of this particular repair was unknown since it was not
documented. The repair showed no signs of deterioration and appeared to be sound.
Figure 3.12 shows a patch repair on a column and pier cap. The patches were not
observed to have any deterioration at the time of the inspection.

Figure 3.11 B-40-0115 Full Column Repair

82

Figure 3.12 B-40-0115 Column and Pier Cap Patch Repair

3.2 Bridge B-40-0226
Bridge B-40-0226 carries Ryan Road over IH-94 in the city of Oak Creek in
Milwaukee County. It is 210 feet long with a deck width of 49.5 feet. The bridge
substructure was given a Substructure Rating of 5 from an inspection on 10-06-2011. A
rating of 5 indicates that the substructure is in fair condition. Fair condition indicates that
all of the primary structural elements are sound, but some contain minor section loss,
cracking, spalling or scour (WisDOT 2003). The bridge was built in 1965 and the most
recent inspection recommended that the bridge should be replaced by 2014. The
abutment is a sill abutment resting on 12-inch timber pilings.
83

The west sill abutment has experienced several deterioration issues that were
noted in the most recent inspection. The north end of the west sill abutment backwall has
experienced cracking, which is documented in Figure 3.13. A second smaller cracking
condition is documented in the inspection report. Figure 3.13 also illustrates spalling of
the abutment between the girders, resulting in exposed reinforcement. The exposing of
the reinforcement provides visual evidence of the corrosion. This corrosion is most likely
a result of the failure in the strip seal expansion joint above the abutment. Since the
abutment is protected from the elements, the documented deterioration of the expansion
joint in the most recent inspection is the most likely reason for corrosion to be forming on
the reinforcement.
The pier columns in bridge B-40-0226 have deterioration issues that are typical in
the southeastern region of WisDOT. Figure 3.14 shows the delamination and vertical
cracking on the pier column. The delamination has exposed a small amount of steel
reinforcement near the bottom of the column. The deterioration normally occurs on this
portion of the column resulting from application of deicing chemicals. As snowplows
pass, snow is thrown against the column and packed, providing a condition for
chemically saturated snow to adhere to the surface of the pier column. The extended
amount of time that the snow pack has been allowed to stay on the face of the column is
what greatly accelerated the corrosion of the reinforcement.
84

Figure 3.13 B-40-0226 Abutment Shear Failure

Figure 3.14 B-40-0226 Pier Column Deterioration

The slope embankment of bridge B-40-0226 is rated in Condition State 3,
indicating major deterioration. It is composed of concrete blocks that are experiencing
undermining, cracking, and heaving at the toe. Some of these issues can be seen in
Figure 3.15, which displays the undermining of some of the slope embankment. The
85

settlement of the slope protection can also be seen in that figure. The east slope, while
not pictured, displays many of the same characteristics as the west end.

Figure 3.15 B-40-0226 Undermining of Slope Embankment

3.3 Bridge B-40-0494
Bridge B-40-0494 is a haunched slab bridge 110 feet in length located in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The bridge was constructed in 1977 and experiences an average
daily traffic volume of 12,800 vehicles. This particular bridge was visited and
documented to observe repairs that were performed in 2007. The repairs were on the
underside of the bridge deck, but the repair techniques employed for the bridge deck
repair are certainly applicable to substructure elements (e.g. pier caps, pier columns).
The underside of the bridge deck was repaired using sacrificial anodes and spray-
on concrete. Figures 3.16 and 3.17 illustrate locations that were repaired using this
method. The repair is four years old at the time of this report and it is still rated in a good
86

condition state based on the last inspection. Some new spalling has occurred on other
sections of the underside of the deck. Figure 3.18 is included to show the typical
condition the concrete was in before the sacrificial anodes and spray-on concrete were
applied.

Figure 3.16 B-40-0494 Sacrificial Anode Repair

Since the concrete was spalling over a roadway, it was necessary to ensure that
loose concrete would not fall on passing traffic. The use of sacrificial anodes keeps the
reinforcement from corroding, and causing delamination above the roadway. This bridge
is scheduled to be replaced; the repair technique using spray-on concrete and sacrificial
anodes is planned to last until the new bridge is constructed. The repair technique that
was employed is intended to extend the service life of the existing bridge until the new
superstructure can be constructed.
87

Figure 3.17 B-40-0494 Sacrificial Anode Repair

Figure 3.18 B-40-0494 Spalling and Exposed Reinforcement

88

3.4 Bridge B-40-0189
Bridge B-40-0189 is a haunched slab bridge in Milwaukee on USH 45
(northbound lanes). It experiences an average daily traffic volume of 20,400 vehicles.
The bridge was constructed in 1966 and is 114.5 feet in length. This bridge was visited
to document the repairs that were performed on the substructure. Concrete encasements
were added to all of the pier columns for this structure in 1993. At the time of the site
visit, these repairs were 18 years old. The most recent inspection rated the entire
substructure as a 5, indicating fair condition.
Encasements on multiple pier columns can be seen in Figure 3.19. Every pier
column for Bridge B-40-0189 was encased when the work was done in 1993. Despite the
age of the repair, the encasement is still structurally sound. As noted in the latest
inspection, there are a few fine to medium cracks on pier 2, with some delamination. An
example of this cracking can be seen in Figure 3.20. Though there is cracking and some
delamination, there was no visual evidence of spalling and no exposed reinforcement.

Figure 3.19 B-40-0189 Pier Column Encasement
89

Figure 3.20 B-40-0189 Pier Column Encasement Cracking

The detail for the column encasements can be seen in Figure 3.21. It can be noted
that epoxy coated 6 inch by 6 inch 10 gauge woven wire fabric was used for the
encasement. The encasement increased the diameter of the pier column by one foot and
three-inch concrete cover was utilized. Seven of the eight pier columns were given a
condition state rating of 2 out of 4, indicating that were was minor cracking, but there
was no visual evidence of rebar corrosion.
90

Figure 3.21 B-40-0189 Pier Column Encasement Details (WisDOT 2011)

Bridge B-40-0188 is the bridge directly above B-40-0189, and one of the pier
columns for this bridge was also encased. There are fine to medium, horizontal and
vertical cracks in the encasement, which were noted in the most recent inspection. The
cracking on this encasement is facing the roadway, which is an indicator that the damage
was most likely caused by snow pack and spray saturated with de-icing chemicals being
thrown onto the pier columns during snow removal operations. Figure 3.22 shows the
location of the pier column encasement, and where the cracking occurs, while Figure 3.23
shows the closer view of the cracking that is occurring on the encasement. It can also be
seen in Figure 3.22 that the only pier column that needed to be encased for this pier, is
also the only pier column that is near a roadway. This provides a further indication that
deicing chemicals in the spray and snow pack was the cause of the deterioration.
91

Figure 3.22 Bridge B-40-0188 Pier Column Encasement Location

Figure 3.23 Bridge B-40-0188 Pier Column Encasement Cracking

92

3.5 Bridge B-40-0122
Bridge B-40-0122 is a prestressed concrete deck girder bridge in the city of West
Allis, Wisconsin. It was built in 1961 and has undergone multiple repairs since its initial
construction. The bridge's replacement is scheduled for 2014. The structure is 200 feet
long and spans over IH 894-USH 45. The bridge was inspected on August 25, 2011 and
the substructure was rated as a 6. A Substructure Rating of 6 indicates that the
substructure is in satisfactory condition, with only minor deterioration present (WisDOT
2003). Bridge B-40-0122 has several typical deterioration issues and repairs.
The reinforced concrete pier columns have typical deterioration that faces the
roadway passing beneath the bridge. Figure 3.24 shows the horizontal and vertical
cracking that is present on the pier columns. According to the most recent inspection,
there is also delamination present. All of the cracking that is seen in the figure exists on a
previously patched section of the column. This indicates a failure of the chosen repair
method.

Figure 3.24 Bridge B-40-0122 Concrete Pier Column Patch Cracking
93

There is also extensive pier cap patching on the structure. Some of the patching
on the pier cap still appears sound as seen in Figure 3.25. However, the inspection noted
that there are large areas experiencing delamination and extensive medium sized cracks
in the repaired sections of the pier cap. A section of the repair has spalled as a result of
the widespread delamination that the pier cap is experiencing. This failure can be seen in
Figure 3.26. The right side of the pier cap in the photo has spalled concrete, while the
left side has a long crack running along the length of the concrete patch. The patch that
was added to this particular pier cap is clearly deteriorating as evidenced by the cracks
and delamination noted in the inspection report.

Figure 3.25 Bridge B-40-0122 Concrete Pier Cap Patch

94

Figure 3.26 Bridge B-40-0122 Pier Cap Patch Failure

3.6 Bridges B-40-0129 and B-40-0130
Bridges B-40-0129 and B-40-0130 are prestressed concrete deck girder bridges
located in the city of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. The bridges are 214 feet long and
experience an average daily traffic volume of 9,900 vehicles each. The bridges were
originally constructed in 1961, and the substructures have undergone several
rehabilitative efforts starting in 2006. According to the most recent inspection, the
substructures were both rated as a 5, and both bridges are scheduled to be replaced in
2012.
95

Bridges B-40-0129 and B-40-0130 were included in this inspection because of the
unique repair that was performed on the pier caps. In 2006 the pier caps for piers 1, 2
and 3 of bridge B-40-0130 and pier cap for pier 1 of bridge B-40-0129 were encased in
concrete. Five inches of concrete was added on every side of the previously mentioned
pier caps. The drawing of the pier cap encasements is included in Figure 3.27. The
reinforcement and concrete that was added for bridge B-40-0129 was similar to bridge B-
40-0130. Figure 3.28 depicts the pier cap for pier 3 of bridge B-40-0130. The addition
of concrete can be seen on the underside of the pier cap.

Figure 3.27 B-40-0130 Pier Cap Encasement Drawing (WisDOT 2011)

96

Figure 3.28 B-40-0130 Pier Cap Encasement

Even though the repairs were only five years old at the time of the site visit, they
were already showing signs of deterioration. There was hairline cracking on the bottom
and fascia of all four encased pier caps, evidenced by Figure 3.29. Delamination must
also have been occurring, as spalling was noted on the encasement for pier 3 of bridge
B40-0130. The spalling and exposed reinforcement can be seen in Figure 3.30.

97

Figure 3.29 B-40-0130 Cracking of Pier Cap Encasement

Figure 3.30 B-40-0130 Spalling of Pier Cap Encasement

In addition to the repairs that both bridges have undergone, there are several
typical deterioration issues that are still present. Bridge B-40-0129 is experiencing
erosion at its east concrete slope protection. This can be seen in Figure 3.31, where
several sections of settlement are present. Pier 3 of bridge B-40-0130 is directly beneath
98

an expansion joint, which is causing multiple deterioration issues. The leaking joint may
be the cause of the spalling on the pier cap encasement that was noted, and it also may be
the cause of the spalling on the concrete pier columns.

Figure 3.31 Bridge B-40-0129 Erosion of Slope Protection

The spalling on these columns faces away from the roadway, indicating that the
deicing chemicals attacking the reinforcement may be coming from above. The spalling
and exposed reinforcement on the pier column can be seen in Figure 3.32. The abutment
for bridge B-40-0130 is a sill abutment and is also in need of rehabilitation. Figure 3.33
shows a severe crack in the east abutment at the south end. In addition to significant
cracking at the abutment, there is delamination occurring and spalling with exposed
reinforcement. The spalling can be seen in Figure 3.34, with exposed reinforcement
visible.

99

Figure 3.32 Bridge B-40-0130 Pier Column Spalling

Figure 3.33 Bridge B-40-0130 Abutment Crack
100

Figure 3.34 B-40-0130 Abutment Spalling

3.7 Bridge B-13-0008
Bridge B-13-0008 is a steel girder bridge located in Madison, Wisconsin. The
bridge was constructed in 1949 and experiences an average daily traffic volume of 25,200
vehicles. The bridge is 686 feet long, with nine piers and two abutments. Pier 9 has
experienced several advanced forms of deterioration, since it is located directly beneath a
strip seal expansion joint. Poor expansion joint maintenance most likely allowed deicing
chemicals applied to the bridge deck surface to travel below the deck onto the pier cap.
Passing plows causing snow pack on the side of the pier also likely caused some damage.
Figure 3.35 shows pier 9 of the structure, where extensive alligator (map) cracking is
present. At the center of the pier, spalled concrete and exposed reinforcement is visible.
Both ends of the pier have large cracks that appear to show delaminated concrete. Figure
3.36 shows the heavy vertical crack at the east end of pier 9.
101

Figure 3.35 B-13-0008 Pier Deterioration

Figure 3.36 B-13-0008 Pier Vertical Crack
Direct evidence of the damage caused by the strip seal expansion joint can be seen
in Figure 3.37. The top of the pier cap for pier 9 has extensive spalling and delamination.
Exposed reinforcement is visible for almost the entire length of the pier cap, and large
102

pieces of concrete are missing. The corrosion that is widespread throughout the
reinforcement of the pier can be seen in Figure 3.38. Since this corrosion is occurring on
the top of the pier cap, it is evident that the damage is caused by a deteriorated expansion
joint. It can be seen in Figure 3.38 that the steel reinforcement has experienced section
loss as a result of corrosion, and that large portions of the reinforcement are open to the
elements due to the spalled concrete. Due to the advanced deterioration of the piers that
are located below expansion joints for bridge B-13-0008, the most recent inspection
recommended that they all undergo fiberwrap surface repairs.

Figure 3.37 B-13-0008 Pier Cap Spalling

103

Figure 3.38 B-13-0008 Steel Reinforcement Deterioration
3.8 Bridge B-11-0024
Bridge B-11-0024 is a prestressed concrete girder bridge located in Arlington,
Wisconsin within Columbia County. The bridge was constructed in 1961 and
experiences an average daily traffic volume of 33,050 vehicles. The bridge is 139 feet
long and was visited and documented as part of the present research effort since a fiber
wrap repair was completed on multiple pier columns, girders and pier caps. The repair
was conducted in 2011, a year before the research team documented the bridge. The
effectiveness of this particular repair cannot be judged yet since it has not been in place
very long; however, at the time of inspection the repair was still in very good condition.
Figure 3.39 shows the fiber wrapped pier cap, with fiber wrapped columns. It can
be seen that some of the pier columns were only partially wrapped where deterioration
was present. The entire surface of the pier cap was wrapped in FRP. Figure 3.40 shows
how the different layers of FRP overlap on the edge of the pier cap. The current
104

specification for Wisconsin FRP repairs (WisDOT 2005) requires that an edge lap of 12-
inches be present for all FRP repairs.

Figure 3.39 Bridge B-11-0024 FRP Pier Repair

Figure 3.40 Bridge B-11-0024 Pier Cap FRP Layout

A closer view of the fiber wrapped column can be seen in Figure 3.41, where the
different layers of FRP become visible. The coarseness of the fiber mesh can also be
105

seen in Figure 3.41. Consistent with the concrete encasement repair method, some
concern was noted regarding future inspection practices. The FRP repair on the columns
now makes it extremely difficult to know the status of the original concrete.

Figure 3.41 Bridge B-11-0024 Pier Column FRP Repair
The substructure deterioration in the Southeast and Southwest regions of
Wisconsin documented by the research team is fairly representative of common problems
experienced throughout Wisconsins infrastructure. Deterioration of concrete elements,
such as cracking and spalling, are some of the most common problems that maintenance
engineers must address. The repairs shown in the previous sections only represent a
small portion of the options that are available. Research was done to identify a broad
range of repairs, ranging from the common to the experimental.
Due to the limited number of bridge inspection trips made, many other common
deterioration problems were not observed. For example, deterioration of pilings could
106

not be documented due to accessibility issues. There was no opportunity to review scour
repairs in the limited time available for the inspections. Despite their lack of attention in
the previous sections, they are common problems and are addressed in other sections of
this document. The repairs and deterioration problems documented previously should be
seen as a representative example of some of the problems that are currently plaguing
bridge substructures throughout Wisconsin.
The greatest value of these site visits was in the ability to gauge repair longevity.
Several instances of concrete surface repair were observed on different substructures.
The majority of the concrete surface repairs that were encountered were already
experiencing some form of deterioration. Since records are not usually kept for these
basic repairs it is extremely difficult to estimate how long they remained effective.
Alternatively, the use of concrete encasements on pier columns was well
documented. When the repair was visited it had been in service for eighteen years. No
spalling or exposed reinforcement was present on the encasements but some delamination
had been noted in the last inspection. This particular bridge would make it appear that
concrete encasements on pier columns can have a service life upwards of twenty years.
When the concrete encasement method was utilized on pier caps in Southeastern
Wisconsin, it was extremely less effective than when it was placed around pier columns.
The pier cap encasement that was observed had been in place for five years. At the time
of the visit extensive cracking was present over the entire pier cap surface. Localized
delamination, spalling, and exposed reinforcement were also observed. This specific
repair would imply that concrete pier cap encasements should not be used, since they
have a short and unreliable service life.
107

Several repairs were observed during the site visits that were fairly young, but
showed promising signs for estimated service life. The use of sacrificial anodes to
prevent corrosion was observed four years after the repair had been conducted. At the
time of the visit the repair was still in sound condition with no delamination present. The
sacrificial anodes were clearly working because other sections of the bridge had
experienced reinforcement corrosion and spalling since the repair had been put in place.
Sacrificial anodes are typically estimated to last fifteen years, which seems possible given
the current lack of deterioration. An FRP repair was also observed even though it had
been in place for only one year. At the time of the visit, the FRP wrapped columns and
pier caps showed no signs of deterioration. The same repair was conducted on median
barriers and corrosion was evident through the FRP wrap after only three years. The
actual FRP wrap is estimated to last up to 50 years, but the concrete inside may
deteriorate much sooner. The use of a chloride extraction or sacrificial anodes can be
combined with an FRP wrap to ensure that existing chlorides within the concrete do not
continue to attack the steel reinforcement. This may be a desirable approach since future
inspection on the existing concrete becomes impossible after the FRP wrap is placed.

108

CHAPTER 4 CONCRETE SUBSTRUCTURES
Reinforced and prestressed concrete are widely used for bridge construction for
both superstructures and substructures. Major sources of deterioration in concrete
substructures include cracking and spalling. A pier with map cracks is shown in Figure
4.1. The cracking in substructures can be caused by vehicle/vessel impact, chemical
reaction, construction error(s), corrosion of embedded reinforcement, design error(s),
freezing and thawing, foundation movement, shrinkage, and temperature changes (Army
and Air Force 1994). The corrosion of steel reinforcement can cause excessive cracking
and spalling of concrete substructures as shown in Figure 4.2.
There are many methods for investigation and assessment of concrete
substructures, including visual surveys, core drilling, laboratory tests (petrographic
examination, chemical analysis, and physical analysis), nondestructive testing (rebound
numbers, penetration resistance, ultrasonic pulse velocity, surface tapping, etc.), steel
corrosion assessment, and load testing.
The following methods can be used to control the steel corrosion in reinforced or
prestressed concrete substructures: remove and replace all chloride-contaminated
concrete; reduce the concentration of, and change the distribution of, chloride ions by
using electrochemical chloride extraction; stop or slow the ingress of future chloride ions
by using a less permeable cementitious overlay composed of latex, silica fume, or fly ash-
modified concretes; stop or slow the ingress of future chloride ions by using sealers,
membranes, and waterproofing materials; repair cracks to prevent chloride ion
contamination; apply barrier coatings on the reinforcing steel in the repair areas; apply
corrosion inhibitors in the repair or over the entire concrete element to either interfere
109

with the corrosion process or modify the characteristics of the in-place concrete; and
apply a cathodic protection system. Among all strategies and techniques, cathodic
protection is the only technology that can directly stop further corrosion, even in the most
corrosive environment, if designed, installed, and applied correctly (Sohanghpurwala
2009).

Figure 4.1 Map Cracking on a Pier (Army and Air Force 1994)

Figure 4.2 Corrosion of a Pier Column (West et al. 1999)
110

The large variety of cracking types prevents a single repair method for all
concrete cracking problems. For active cracking, strengthening the structure is required
to prevent further development of new cracks and propagation of existing cracks. For
dormant cracking, simple sealing may solve the problem. Primary methods of spalling
repair include removing the deteriorated concrete and replacing it with new concrete that
has similar characteristics (Army and Air Force 1994). Concrete jackets and fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) wrapping can be used to repair and strengthen the deteriorated
concrete substructures. The details of these repair methods are discussed in following
sections.
Repairs to concrete substructure members are notoriously unreliable and have a
high failure rate. A study was conducted by G.P. Tilly to determine how effective
concrete repairs are, and which repairs are the most reliable. Tilly surveyed engineers
throughout Europe to collect the necessary repair data. Tilly found that the majority of
concrete bridges require repair within the first 11 to 20 years of their service life (Tilly
2011). The success rates that Tilly encountered highlight the high failure rates that are
typical with concrete bridge repair. After all of the repairs were considered, only 50%
were reported as successful, with a 25% failure rate (Tilly 2011). Tilly discovered that
65% of the cracking repairs were successful, whereas only 25% of the freeze-thaw repairs
were successful. Repairs ranked in order of effectiveness were restoration of strength,
crack injection, cathodic protection, coatings, patches, and spray (Tilly 2011). Crack
injection was mostly utilized where corrosion was still in the initial stages, and may have
resulted in a higher result due to the minimal corrosion. Cementitious patches, the most
common repair in Wisconsin, were found to only be 45% successful (Tilly 2011). The
111

use of cathodic protection provided one of the more reliable repairs throughout Europe.
Cathodic protection repairs were successful 60% of the time, which was 10% higher than
the average repair success rate (Tilly 2011). The increased reliability of the cathodic
protection repair may make the repair more desirable despite the initial increase in cost.
Reliability of repairs is a very important concern, especially because the success rate of
repairs decreases by 30% between 5 and 10 years after they are implemented (Tilly
2011).
4.1 General Repairs
There are a variety of repair methods that can be done on multiple substructure
members. Concrete cracking can affect all substructure members. Different repair
approaches can be taken depending upon which member is deteriorated, but most crack
repairs are designed to be used for multiple bridge sections. Cathodic protection, simple
surface repairs and sprayed-on concrete are typically conducted throughout bridge
substructures. While the precise specification for these repairs may change depending on
where they are located, the theory behind the repairs remains the same.
4.1.1 Concrete Cracking
Concrete cracking is a common problem for both substructures and
superstructures. Cracking can be considered to be an important indicator of deterioration
of concrete or possible steel reinforcement corrosion. Cracking can be due to a variety of
reasons including corrosion of reinforcement, sulfate attack, alkali aggregate reactivity,
shrinkage, thermal and load effects, frost and salt attack, impact forces, overloading, or
112

faulty construction (ARTC 2003). Not all cracks are considered to be structurally
significant. In general, cracks up to 0.3mm in width have no adverse effect when
reinforcement cover is adequate (ARTC 2003). However, cracks that are caused by
severe deterioration require removal and replacement of concrete instead of typical crack
repairs.
For repair purposes, there are two types of cracks that are of significance: dead
and live cracks. Dead cracks are those that are inactive and do not move. Live cracks are
those that are subject to movement due to applied loads and temperature changes.
Inactive cracks can be repaired through epoxy injection, grouting, routing and sealing,
drilling and plugging, stitching, adding reinforcement, and overlays and surface
treatments. Active cracks can be repaired using flexible sealants (ARTC 2003). The
detail procedures of these methods can be found in Bridge Inspection, Maintenance, and
Repair (Army and Air Force 1994), Bridge Repair Manual RC 4300 (ARTC 2003), and
Maintenance Manual Volume 1Chapter H: Bridge (CADOT 2006).
Determining the best approach for crack repair can be a difficult course of action.
Depending upon the structural implications of the cracking, and the width of the cracks,
the deterioration may require different solutions. A flow chart for the decision process
for most cracks can be seen in Figure 4.3. Some sources believe that epoxy injection
should only be utilized with cracks up to 1.0mm thick (Raina 1996). Other state
transportation departments frequently use epoxy injection with cracks up to 1/8-inch
thick (ODOT 2012). Epoxy injection typically costs around $10 per square foot and is
expected to last 20 years (ODOT 2012). It was frequently reported throughout the survey
113

that was distributed that attempting to epoxy inject a crack that was too large provided no
benefit to the structure.

Figure 4.3 Crack Repair Decision Flow Chart (Raina 1996)
Regardless of what material is selected to fill the crack, there are certain steps that
should be taken during the repair. The crack injection should proceed as follows (Raina
1996). First, clean the cracks using high pressure air. Second, drill injection holes along
the crack and use the high pressure air to clean the injection holes. Third, adhere nipples
along the crack and cover the surface between the nipples with a liquid sealant. Fourth,
mix the injection material and inject it through the nipples in ascending elevation. Lastly,
re-injection of the material should be pursued if it is deemed necessary. A schematic of
this procedure can be seen in Figure 4.4.
114

Figure 4.4 Crack Injection Diagram
There are several other solutions to crack repair besides injection. Some of these
methods are stitching, jacketing, external prestressing, and drilling and plugging.
External prestressing is the only crack repair method that does not have direct
applicability to substructure repair. While the other three crack repair methods are not
common, they may prove useful for certain conditions and should still be mentioned.
Stitching is not frequently done on substructure members, but is still an option for
certain types of deterioration. The reason stitching is typically not conducted on
substructure members is because when it is placed in compression, the stitching dogs
need to be encased in a concrete overlay to transfer the compressive force (Army and Air
Force 1994). When a stitching system is applied it does nothing to close the existing
crack, but prevents the crack from spreading throughout the member (Army and Air
Force 1994). Leaving the crack open would provide a path for chlorides to travel and
corrode the reinforcement, necessitating a sealer in addition to the stitching repair.
Stitching is installed by drilling holes at each end of the crack, then drilling holes on both
115

sides of the crack. Once the holes are in place and cleaned the dogs should be placed
inside with a grout or epoxy (Army and Air Force 1994). The stitching repair method
can be seen in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5 Stitching Crack Repair
Jacketing is a possible crack repair method, due to the inherent protection that it
provides for the existing member. Jacketing is usually reserved for more severe
deterioration such as delamination and spalling. If a pier column has cracking throughout
its length, then it may be more cost-effective to use a jacket to repair the column. Jackets
retain the ability to restore column strength, while still protecting the column from the
elements. Usually the danger of cracking is the possibility of chlorides entering the
concrete, therefore the impermeable barrier created by many jackets will help to ensure
that further deterioration and reinforcement corrosion do not occur.
Drilling and plugging is a crack repair method that is ideal for vertical cracks in
abutments. This repair method requires a hole to be drilled down the entire length of the
116

crack. The minimum diameter of the hole depends on the crack width, but is usually 2 to
2.5-inches in diameter (Raina 1996). After the hole is drilled it is grouted, which acts as
a key that resists transverse movement of the section and prevents leakage through the
crack (Army and Air Force 1994). An important concept of this repair method is that the
top of the crack must be accessible for the drilling to be carried out. Figure 4.6 shows
how the repair should be conducted on an abutment.

Figure 4.6 Drilling and Plugging Crack Repair (Raina 1996)
4.1.2 Cathodic Protection Systems
Cathodic protection systems are the only existing technology that is capable of
completely stopping corrosion of reinforcement within concrete. The high initial cost of
cathodic protection systems has prevented the technology from becoming popular. If the
lifecycle of the repair is considered, then cathodic protection systems start to appear
117

much more economically feasible. Both sacrificial anodes and impressed current systems
have been utilized on bridges throughout the United States and have yielded very positive
results.
Galvanic Cathodic Systems
The corrosion of steel reinforcement can be very detrimental to the strength of
concrete structures. Cathodic protection is the only existing technology that can directly
stop further corrosion, even in the most corrosive environment (Sohanghpurwala 2009).
Galvanic protection systems use sacrificial anodes, typically composed of zinc, which
provide a protective current for the steel reinforcement (NYSDOT 2008). The typical
composition of a zinc anode can be seen in Figure 4.7. The sacrificial anodes will
provide less protection over time due to the corrosion of the anode, which is expected to
last from 5 to 15 years (NYSDOT 2008). Figure 4.8 shows the application of sacrificial
anodes on the reinforcing steel of a concrete column.

Figure 4.7 Zinc Anode Composition (NYSDOT 2008)

118

Figure 4.8 Sacrificial Anodes on Concrete Column (NYSDOT 2008)
The following steps are recommended by the NYSDOT (2008) before a sacrificial anode
system can be installed:
i. Galvanic anodes are not effective in materials with electrical resistivity
greater than 15,000 ohm-cm. Polymer, fly ash and silica fume-based
materials are not advisable to be used in conjunction with the anodes.
a. More work will be required if there is an epoxy coating on the rebar.
b. Galvanic anodes do not show any appreciable benefit when used with
low volume shotcrete.
ii. Calculate the required number of anodes, depending on the density of the
reinforcing steel, using manufacturers specifications.
119

iii. Place the anodes to ensure sufficient connection between the anode and
the reinforcing steel. Steel continuity and electrical connection between
the tie wires need to be confirmed. Minimum concrete cover, in. for the
anode, should never be violated, so the anode should be placed either
beside or below the rebar
Figure 4.9 shows a schematic of the correct placement of the anode, as well as its desired
effect. It can be seen in the figure that the anode protects the rebar that it is in direct
contact with, and prevent corrosion despite the chloride contamination.

Figure 4.9 Sacrificial Zinc Anode Protection Placement (Vector Corrosion
Technologies 2011b)

120

Zinc Surface Spray
A relatively new product available to prevent steel reinforcement corrosion is a
zinc surface spray. This spray is a galvanic form of protection and needs no outside
power source. The metalized zinc attracts the chloride ions in place of the existing steel
reinforcement. The surface spray provides an additional benefit since the concrete does
not need to be removed for placement, as is typical for sacrificial anode repairs. A
galvanized steel threaded rod needs to be placed in the concrete in order to establish a
connection to the steel reinforcement. Multiple threaded rods may be necessary if there
is a large area being treated, in order to ensure that electrical continuity is maintained.
This process typically costs between $22 and $27/S.F. and typically lasts between 10 and
20 years (Vector Corrosion Technologies 2011c).
Impressed Current Systems
Impressed current systems are typically utilized in extremely high corrosion
environments. The installation is typically more invasive and expensive than galvanic
anodes. The service life of these systems is expected to be longer than sacrificial anodes,
and impressed current systems are capable of eliminating all on-going corrosion.
Impressed current systems rely on continuous electrical contact between the installed
members and require an outside source of electrical current.
Discrete Anodes
The use of discrete anodes is the more common implementation of impressed
current cathodic protection. The installation process for discrete anodes is rather
121

invasive, but the repair is estimated to last as much as 50 years (Vector Corrosion
Technologies 2011a). The discrete anodes are usually connected by a titanium wire
which will carry the current from the DC power supply. Due to the possible creation of
hydrogen ions, which can have damaging effects on the steel reinforcement, a gas
ventilation system needs to be installed that will connect all of the anodes. An image of
the correct installation and placement of the discrete anodes can be seen in Figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10 Impressed Current Discrete Anode Placement
The installation of the discrete anodes is a multiple day procedure involving
several distinct steps (Vector Corrosion Technologies 2011a). Holes must be predrilled
into the existing concrete with special attention paid to spacing between anodes and
existing steel reinforcement. A saw cut must be completed a minimum of 10mm into the
concrete in order to provide room for the gas vent tube to be run between the anodes. A
special high density, acid buffering grout should be placed into the drilled holes in order
122

to secure the anodes. After the anodes have been placed and connected to the gas vent
tube, the same grout is used to provide a protective surface cover. The power source
should not be connected to the system until at least 4 days after the grout was placed.
Surface Mounted Tape
The use of a surface mounted titanium tape anode as an impressed current
cathodic protection system has several advantages over the typical discrete anodes. Since
the system can adhere to the existing concrete, no drilling or saw cutting is required for
placement. The surface mounted tape is identified as being directly applicable for bridge
substructure repairs (Vector Corrosion Technologies 2010b). Since the surface mounted
tape is an impressed current system, it is capable of eliminating on-going corrosion.
While the material costs for the titanium tape anode may be rather high, the decreased
installation cost and the estimated service life of 75 years make it a feasible repair
(Vector Corrosion Technologies 2010b).
Before installation of the tape anode, the surface of the existing concrete must be
sandblasted smooth and blown with compressed air. Once the tape is placed according to
the manufacturers specifications, the conductivity needs to remain continuous.
Intercrossing tape anodes should be tack welded or connected with a conductive epoxy
(Vector Corrosion Technologies 2010b). Figure 4.11 shows how a tape anode system is
typically placed. The power source that supplies the impressed current can be seen in the
photo. In order to ensure that the tape anode remains in place there are two common
methods for securing it to the concrete surface. An FRP tape can be placed over the tape,
with an aesthetic coating on top of the tape. Alternatively a polymer coating can be
123

placed over the tape anode which will secure and protect the tape while providing an
aesthetic appearance. Both of the possible installations can be seen in Figure 4.12.

Figure 4.11 Impressed Current Surface Mounted Tape Placement (Vector Corrosion
Technologies 2010b)

Figure 4.12 Proper Surface Mounting and Coating of Anode Tape (Vector Corrosion
Technologies 2010b)
124

Chloride Extraction
Chloride extraction is a chemical process that removes chloride ions from within
the concrete. Chloride extraction is usually achieved by placing an anode mesh along the
outside of the concrete member. This anode mesh is typically composed of either
titanium or steel. Zinc does not need to be used for chloride extraction, since an
impressed current is utilized to affect which element the chloride ions will travel towards.
The power source will place a negative charge on the steel reinforcement within the
concrete, and a positive charge on the anode mesh placed outside of the concrete. An
electrolyte substance is typically sprayed on the surface of the concrete to provide a
medium for the chloride ions to reach the anode mesh. The electrolyte needs to remain
wet throughout the entire extraction process so an irrigation system and coverings are
necessary. The repair usually costs between $35 and $50/S.F. and needs to be left in
place for four to eight weeks. It is estimated that the process will have a 25 to 30 year
service life (Vector Corrosion Technologies 2012).
4.1.3 Simple Surface Repair
From the survey that was distributed, the simple surface repair was identified as
the most common repair conducted throughout Wisconsins infrastructure. The
responses also mentioned it as the least effective repair. The simple surface repair was
mentioned 25% more for its ineffective nature than any other repair, which was shown in
Figure 2.36. The concrete surface repair method utilized in Wisconsin removes all
existing concrete to a depth of 1-inch below the reinforcing steel or to sound concrete.
After the surface has been thoroughly cleaned, new concrete is placed. It is desirable that
125

the new concrete be as similar to the existing concrete as possible. Maintenance
engineers have observed poor bonding behavior if the two concrete types are not of
adequate similarity. If the area that needs to be repaired is large, then an encasement,
jacket or FRP wrap may be desirable alternatives.
4.1.4 Sprayed-On Concrete Repair
The use of sprayed-on concrete throughout bridge substructures is frequently
convenient when site access is limited. Sprayed-on concrete may be used for either
forming new concrete or for creating a concrete encasement (Raina 1996). The results of
the survey indicated that proper adhesion between sprayed-on concrete and the base
concrete is often difficult to achieve. The reliability of this repair could be increased by
proper treatment of the existing concrete surface. The existing concrete should be
sandblasted in preparation for the sprayed-on concrete. The base concrete should also be
pre-moistened prior to application (Raina 1996). A proper construction sequence and
procedure are crucial to ensuring that sprayed-on concrete will be a strong and lasting
repair.
4.2 Concrete Pile Repair
Depending upon the design of the bridge it can be difficult to inspect most, if not
all, of the pile. Due to the inability to observe deterioration when it begins, underpinning
needs to be considered if complete bearing is lost before the pile can be adequately
repaired. There are several solutions present if the pile still retains some of its cross
section, but the most important concept is to address why the deterioration occurred. If
126

the repair replaces cross section but does not consider the source of the deterioration, it
will not be effective.
4.2.1 Pile J ackets
If a concrete pile is severely deteriorated, and pile replacement is not viable, the
deteriorated portion of the pile can be encased in new concrete using a fiberglass or steel
form jacket (Wipf et al. 2003). This is similar to the jacket for timber piles, which will be
described in the section for timber substructures. Fiberglass jackets were extensively
tested for use in the 1970s. They have been frequently used because they can be placed
on concrete, wood, or steel. Fiberglass jacket systems also do not require dewatering, are
effective in all water types, work above and below the waterline, and involve relatively
simple installation (Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011). There are two common
fiberglass pile repairs that are conducted based on deterioration of the existing pile. If the
section loss of the existing pile is less than 25% then a annular void is created
between the pile and the fiberglass jacket. The void is then filled with moisture
insensitive epoxy grout. Figure 4.13 shows how the epoxy grout can be poured into the
void between the fiberglass jacket and the pile. If the section loss is greater than 25%
then a minimum 2 annular void is created between the fiberglass jacket and the pile.
The bottom 6 and top 4 of the void are filled with the same moisture insensitive epoxy
grout. The rest of the void is filled with a non-segregating cement grout (Fox
Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011). The fiberglass jacket and moisture insensitive
epoxy grout provide an impermeable barrier that will protect the cement grout.
127

Figure 4.13 Fiberglass Jacket Pile Repair (Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011)
The basic construction procedure for fiberglass jacket repairs is listed below (Wipf et
al. 2003):
1. Clean the surface (sandblast, water-jet blast or hard-wire brush) of the pile where
the jacket is to be installed.
2. Install a reinforcing cage around the pile; use spacers to keep the reinforcement in
place.
3. Place the forming jacket around the pile and seal the bottom of the form.
4. Pump the concrete into the form through the opening at the top.
5. Finish top portion of the repaired area, the top surface of the pile jacket should be
sloped to allow runoff.
Figure 4.13 shows the construction method for pile jacketing and an example of a
finished repair is shown in Figure 4.14.
128

Figure 4.14 Constructed Fiberglass Jacket Repair (Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie
2011)

The cost of a fiberglass pile repair is dependent on a number of factors. Since the
section loss of the pile can change the procedure, the unit cost is highly dependent on
how much of the pile still remains. Depending on site conditions, if the piles that need
repair are far apart, then the repair cost could be increased based on the need for more
barges or work stations. The depth of deterioration on the pile will have a direct result on
how large the fiberglass jacket needs to be for the repair to be most effective. An
example of a common pile repair fiberglass jacket is the FX-70 manufactured by Fox
Industries, which can be seen in Figure 4.14. Some of these fiberglass jackets have been
in place for more than 20 years, without showing any sign of deterioration (Fox
Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011). The cost range for installing a system of this type
can be anywhere from $600 per linear foot to $1,200 per linear foot, depending upon the
129

previously mentioned site conditions. Since the fiberglass jacket helps prevent future
deterioration and corrosion, it may prove to be a very cost-effective repair. Figure 4.15
shows how the new reinforcement could be placed within the jacket, if it is required to
achieve adequate strength. The jacket is quite effective at protecting the existing pile
from future deterioration, but prevents any future visual inspection from occurring. An
example of how jackets could prevent future inspections is shown in Figure 4.16.
Fiberglass jackets have been in place for anywhere from 20 to 40 years without showing
signs of further deterioration.

Figure 4.15 Pile Jacketing

130

Figure 4.16 Jacketing of Concrete Piles (Wipf et al. 2003)
4.2.2 FRP Wrapping for Concrete Piles
Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) have long been used for the repair and retrofit of
concrete structural elements. They are lightweight, have high strength and stiffness,
include flexibility to fit any shape, and are also corrosion free. Therefore, they have
been favored for conducting emergency bridge repairs where speed is of the essence (Sen
and Mullins 2007). Because of the resin, which can cure under water, FRPs can also be
used to repair partially submerged substructure elements, such as corrosion-damaged
concrete piles.
The first step in wrapping FRP to concrete piles is the surface preparation. A
continuous and intimate contact between FRP and concrete surface is very important for
the FRP wrapping technique. Therefore, depressions and voids on the concrete surface
have to be patched using suitable material that is compatible with the concrete substrate
(Sen and Mullins 2007). For non-circular piles, the corners of the piles need to be ground
131

to a minimum of 3/4 in. radius to avoid stress concentration in the wrapping material (Sen
and Mullins 2007). Before resin is applied to the pile, all surfaces that will be wrapped
should be pressure washed to remove all dust and debris. After the surfaces are cleaned,
FRP can be wrapped around the concrete pile by following the requirements of strength
design and the manufacturers procedures. Figure 4.17 shows FRP wrapping to retrofit a
concrete pile.

Figure 4.17 FRP Wrapping on a Concrete Pile (Sen and Mullins 2007)
Fratta and Pincheira (2008) finished a research project, which was sponsored by
the Wisconsin Highway Research Program (WHRP), to study the effectiveness of the
fiberglass wrapping in reducing the corrosion degradation rate of the columns for
Wisconsin bridges. The research of Fratta and Pincheira (2008) focused on testing the
further ingress of chloride ions after wrapping and no structural capacity effect of FRP
wrapping on bridge columns were studied.
The specific provisions for application of FRP wrapping in Wisconsin are detailed
by WisDOT in the special provisions (2005a). The fabric should be a continuous woven
132

filament, with a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 40 ksi, and a minimum of 1/8-inch
thick. Electrical glass fibers should be the primary fibers that compose the fabric. An
epoxy resin should be utilized, and under no circumstances should a polyester resin be
allowed as a substitute. All of the pier surfaces need to be adequately smoothed prior to
installation of the fiber wrap. The pier surface must be completely dry, and coated with
an approved sealer, if a patch repair has not cured a minimum of 7 days.
According to the special provisions (2005a), the external weather conditions are
important when the installation is being carried out. The temperature must be between
55 and 95 with a relative humidity less than 85%. The epoxy resin should be
mixed and applied uniformly to the fiber wrap until it is saturated. The fiberwrap needs
to be a minimum of one layer around the column. The fabric needs to be continuous and
have edge laps of 6-inches, with end laps of 12-inches. After the fiber wrap has achieved
adequate thickness around the column, it should be covered with a 15-mil thick coat of
epoxy. After the epoxy is dry, epoxy paint should be applied in a minimum of two coats
to protect the repair from UV radiation.
4.2.3 Pile-Underpinning with Mini Piles
When additional strength is required from the foundation, there are several
options available. Mini piles can be utilized if the existing piles have deteriorated to the
point where they can no longer support the existing load. If access to the existing piles is
an issue, then adding new piling through the use of mini piles may be an effective
treatment. Mini piles are typically rotary drilled through the structure that needs
additional foundation strength. It is believed that the load will be transferred to the mini
133

piles through concrete friction (Raina 1996). Mini piles can potentially require less work
than traditional underpinning because the construction of a needle beam is not required
due to the friction interaction. Figure 4.18 shows how the mini piles could be placed to
ensure maximum effectiveness. There needs to be a large enough contact area between
the new mini piles and the existing footing so that the friction can adequately transfer the
loading.

Figure 4.18 Mini Pile Installation
4.2.4 Pile-Underpinning
Underpinning is a common solution that has been utilized to strengthen
foundations that can no longer support the existing loads. Whether the existing piles are
deteriorated or the footing needs to be strengthened, underpinning provides a reliable
solution. New piles are constructed on either side of the existing footing, and a needle
beam is placed below the existing footing. The needle beam then transfers the entire load
134

from the footing to the newly constructed piles, as seen in Figure 4.19. Steel bearing
plates or dry pack concrete should be used to make the connection between the existing
footing and the needle beam (Raina 1996). The excavation required to successfully
underpin the foundation make this repair somewhat cumbersome and expensive. It is
also very likely that the bridge will need to be shut down, to reduce the loading in order
for the repair to be carried out. Underpinning should be utilized only if the existing piles
or foundation are not capable of being repaired by less invasive methods.

Figure 4.19 Underpinning with a Needle Beam
4.3 Concrete Pier Repair
Repair of concrete piers is one of the most frequent deterioration problems that
must be addressed. Since piers are typically the substructure member placed closest to
adjacent roadways, they experience frequent deterioration. Chloride intrusion from
deicing chemical spray causes frequent reinforcement corrosion of concrete pier caps and
135

columns. Adequate repair procedures to fix spalled concrete and prevent future chloride
intrusion are necessary to optimize bridge life.
4.3.1 Widening Concrete Piers
If the existing pier columns or pier caps are no longer structurally adequate, new
columns and caps can be constructed to widen the existing pier (Wipf et al. 2003). In this
method, new footings are needed for the new pier columns. The surface of the existing
columns is prepared for the new pier cap. Holes should be drilled through existing pier
columns to provide reinforcement for the new pier cap, and the new pier columns are
cast. Figure 4.20 shows the elevation view of widening concrete piers for a bridge.

Figure 4.20 Widening Concrete Piers
4.3.2 Pier Column Encasement
Pier column encasement is a common repair that has been conducted throughout
Wisconsins infrastructure. A good example of pier column encasement can be seen in
136

Figure 2.19. Pier column encasements have become a desirable repair since they provide
an increased amount of concrete cover for the steel reinforcement, while providing an
additional amount of strength. Since the repair has been completed frequently throughout
Wisconsin, there are specific guidelines for the construction.
The installation procedures follow the special provision guidelines published by
WisDOT (2005b). All loose and delaminated concrete must be removed from the column
until sound concrete is encountered. The steel reinforcement that is exposed must be
cleaned to remove all surface rust. A welded steel wire fabric should be installed that is
an M55 in AASHTO designations. M55 is a plain steel welded wire fabric that is
typically used for concrete reinforcement. Once the welded steel wire fabric is placed,
the concrete encasement is placed around the new column. A protective surface
treatment should be applied to protect the newly placed concrete.
4.3.3 Pier Column FRP Wrap
The procedure for using FRP to strengthen a pier column is very similar to that
identified for piling and should adhere to the WisDOT special provisions. The key for
achieving adequate strength with the FRP composite is to ensure that there exists an
adequate overlap between joints. If there is not adequate overlap, it is very likely that the
column would fail in the spot where the overlapping is insufficient. It is important to
note that FRP confinement is much less effective for rectangular columns than circular
columns because the confining pressure will not be evenly distributed (Jiang and Teng
2008). If a rectangular column is in need of an FRP repair, then the edges need to be
137

rounded to ensure that there are no sharp protrusions that would make the repair
ineffective.
4.3.4 Pier Column J acketing
Pier column jacketing is a very similar procedure to that used for concrete piles.
This particular repair is not completed as often as pile jacketing, primarily because
jackets are designed for marine environments. Pier columns do not suffer the same water
based deterioration as piling, and therefore do not need jacket repairs as frequently.
Jackets could be utilized for other scenarios, and are a good repair when the column has
suffered significant section loss. It is much more common to use a pier column
encasement in Wisconsin than it is to use a jacket, presumably due to the added cost of a
fiberglass jacket. The fiberglass jacket would provide an impermeable barrier, which
would help to prevent future corrosion from occurring. The encasement method still
relies on permeable concrete, and cannot fully stop the invasion of chlorides. In traffic
zones where deicing chemical spray is a leading cause of pier column deterioration, a
fiberglass jacket would help to protect the reinforcement within the concrete columns.
4.3.5 Pier Cap Encasement
Concrete encasement of pier caps is a repair that has been conducted throughout
the Southeast Region of WisDOT. Deteriorated expansion joints frequently result in pier
cap deterioration. The pier cap deterioration is usually evidenced by delamination and
spalling, which requires a concrete surface repair to be conducted. Since concrete
already needs to be placed on the pier cap, the Southeast region has attempted to place
138

additional concrete cover in order to protect the existing reinforcement. Figures 3.27-
3.30 document a 6 year old concrete encasement that was done in Wisconsin. It can be
seen that even though the repair is fairly young, there is extensive cracking and
delamination present. Some spalling has already occurred on the newly placed concrete.
Similar to column encasements, pier cap encasements eliminate the ability to perform
further inspections on the original structure. The use of pier cap encasements seems to be
significantly less effective than pier column encasements.
4.4 Concrete Abutment and Wingwall Repair
The most common form of abutment deterioration involves concrete damage
caused by leaking expansion joints. Typical repair procedures for a leaking expansion
joint involve replacing the expansion joint, cleaning the exposed reinforcement, and
performing a simple concrete surface repair. There are also several less common
abutment deterioration mechanisms that require much more invasive repair methods. If
the abutment should lose stability for any number of reasons, immediate and permanent
repair procedures need to be enacted.
4.4.1 Abutment Concrete Deterioration
Concrete abutments can be badly spalled and cracked resulting from debris
impact, leakage through the abutment, water and chloride migration through joints, or
poor quality concrete. Other possible sources of deterioration are accidental loadings,
chemical reactions, construction errors, corrosion, design errors, erosion, freezing and
thawing, settlement and movement, shrinkage, and temperature changes (Army and Air
139

Force 1994). To prevent moisture from reaching the reinforcement, and causing
corrosion and future damage, badly spalled and cracked abutments need to be repaired.
If the bridge superstructure spans a river and the abutment is in the river bank, a
cofferdam should be constructed (Figure 4.21a) and all water should be pumped out. All
deteriorated concrete is removed to expose the steel reinforcement of the abutment. It is
recommended by Army and Air Force (1994) that the concrete should be cut down to the
vertical and horizontal planes as shown in Figure 4.21c. A new reinforcement mat and
concrete are added to make the abutment 4 to 6 in. thicker. The newly placed concrete
will be at least 1 foot wider than the region of damage (Wipf et al. 2003), in all directions
as shown in Figure 4.21. It is also important to ensure that any leaking joints are sealed
before the new concrete is attached. The cost of this repair method is $45/LF based on
ODOT Bridge Maintenance Manual and ODOT expected life of this repair is 15 years
(ODOT 2012).

Figure 4.21 Repair of Concrete Abutments
140

The typical steps used by the U.S. military for concrete abutment and wingwall
repair are (Army and Air Force 1994):
Excavate to set dowels and forms.
Remove deteriorated concrete by chipping and blast cleaning.
Drill and set tie screws and log studs to support formwork.
Set reinforcing steel and forms.
Apply epoxy-bonding agent to the concrete surface.
Place concrete, cure and remove forms.
Install erosion control materials as necessary.
Figure 4.22 shows the repair of deteriorated concrete abutment and Figure 4.23 shows the
repair of broken or deteriorated wingwalls.

Figure 4.22 Repair of Deteriorated Abutments (Army and Air Force 1994)

141

Figure 4.23 Repair of Broken or Deteriorated Wingwalls (Army and Air Force 1994)
4.4.2 Concrete Abutment Stability
In addition to providing end support for the bridge deck, an abutment often acts as
a retaining wall and is subject to horizontal earth pressures. These pressures, coupled
with the dynamic loading of vehicle traffic, have the tendency to push out the abutment
(Army and Air Force 1994). If the abutment is unstable, it may be shored or fixed. To
fix an unstable abutment, a deadman or a pile anchor is placed approximately 3 feet on
either side of bridge and about 60 to 100 feet from the face of the abutment as shown in
Figure 4.24. A hole is drilled in the wing wall on both sides of the abutment and a beam
is placed on the outside of the cap. A restraining rod or cable is run from the deadman
through the hole in the wall and is connected to the beam. A tension force is applied to
rod or cable to pull the abutment back to its original position and to hold it in place
(Army and Air Force 1994). It is also common to drill new weep holes in the abutment
wall in order to relieve some of the pressure behind the wall caused by soil saturation
(Raina 1996).
142

Figure 4.24 Abutment Reinforced with a Deadman
4.4.3 Abutment Sliding
Typically, abutments are designed so that the vertical loading is large enough to
impart a friction force between the abutment and the soil. If there are not enough vertical
loads, and too much lateral earth pressure, then the abutment may be prone to sliding.
While this particular form of abutment failure is not typical, it is still a possible problem
if the correct conditions are met. The recommended repair procedure for this failure is to
install a pile system that utilizes soldier beams with a sheet pile or tie back system, as
shown in Figure 4.25 (Raina 1996).

Figure 4.25 Abutment Sliding Repair
143

4.4.4 Abutment Settlement
Settlement can be a serious concern for all foundation elements within a bridge
substructure. Abutment settlement can occur when the shearing resistance of the
foundation material is not large enough to prevent soil rupture (Raina 1996). A large
amount of abutment settlement can result in jammed deck joints, cracked slabs, shifted
bearings, cracking, rotating and sliding (Raina 1996). An excessive amount of settlement
has the potential to collapse the entire structure, and highlights the need for an effective
inspection program. Typical repair procedures for abutment settlement involve cement
grouting and chemical grouting to increase the shearing resistance of the foundation
material (Raina 1996). A schematic of the chemical grouting procedure can be seen in
Figure 4.26. If the abutment is a stub type abutment then the abutment can be made
integral with the structure, which forces the structure to support the abutment. This
procedure can cost $50,000 and is only estimated to last 15 years (ODOT 2012).

Figure 4.26 Chemical Grouting Procedure
144

4.4.5 Abutment Slope-Failure
Abutment slope failure occurs when the soil lacks adequate cohesion, and the
foundation is not set deep enough into the soil. Typically, when the loading applied at
the embankment or the footing creates shear stresses that exceed the strength of the soil,
slope-failure slides occur. Slope failures typically result in lateral movements of the
embankment (Raina 1996). This particular failure can be seen in Figure 4.27. For the
failure to occur, the imposed shear stresses must be greater than the soil shear strength.

Figure 4.27 Abutment Slope Failure (Raina 1996)
A typical repair procedure for abutment slope-failure is the use of a tie-back
system to anchor the abutment into the soil (Raina 1996). A successful repair for the
slope-failure can be seen in Figure 4.28. It can be seen in the figure that the anchors are
extended into bedrock, and a pile wall is created to prevent heaving at the toe of the
abutment.
145

Figure 4.28 Slope Failure Repair
4.4.6 Tensile Cracking of Abutment Wall
If the abutment was designed incorrectly, it may prove to be structurally
insufficient and produce tensile cracks along the length of the abutment. These cracks
have the potential to cause a complete failure of the abutment, and should be treated as a
serious concern (Raina 1996). There are two possible solutions should the abutment
prove to be inadequate for the lateral earth pressure. A wall of sheet piling can be placed
behind the abutment in order to resist the majority of the lateral earth pressures (Raina
1996). Special attention should be paid to the sizing of the sheet piles, so they adequately
protect the abutment. This method can be seen in Figure 4.29, where a stitching repair is
also utilized for the tensile cracking. The other solution is to create a new wall in front of
the existing abutment and installing a tie-back system that extends through the existing
146

abutment (Raina 1996). Both solutions are effective, but accessibility may be the
controlling factor when deciding which repair method should be implemented.

Figure 4.29 Abutment Tensile Crack Repair
4.5 Concrete Bridge Seat Repair
Concrete bridge seats may be damaged due to deterioration of concrete, corrosion
of the reinforcing bars, friction from the beam or bearing devices sliding directly on the
seat, and the improper design of the seat which results in shear failure (Army and Air
Force 1994). There are three major repair methods: abutment and cap seat repair,
concrete cap extension, and beam saddle addition. The specific cause of the problems
should be determined before choosing the proper repair method. For all of these
methods, the superstructure of the bridge will be jacked up to repair the seats. Therefore,
a detailed plan of the jacking requirements should be made before repairing bridge seats.

147

4.5.1 Abutment and Cap Seat Repair
Repairing the cap seat at a bridge abutment requires lifting (or temporary shoring)
of the superstructure. In general, it is beneficial to saw cut around the concrete that is to
be removed. Remove deteriorated concrete to the horizontal and vertical planes exposing
sound concrete. Add any required reinforcing steel and construct necessary formwork.
Apply bonding material, place concrete and replace bearings if necessary (Army and Air
Force 1994). A typical repair of concrete bridge seats is shown in Figure 4.30.

Figure 4.30 Typical Repair of Concrete Bridge Seats
4.5.2 Concrete Cap Extension
This repair restores adequate bearing for beams that are deteriorated or sheared at
the point of bearing by anchoring an extension to the existing cap. The typical procedure
involves locating and drilling holes to form a grid in the existing cap and install concrete
148

anchors for subsequent bolting. A welded reinforcing steel grid is then anchored to the
inside head of the anchor bolts. A form should be constructed around the reinforcing steel
grid with acceptable cover around the sides of the bolts. Roofing paper should be placed
against the bottom of the beam, and then concrete may be pumped into the form (Army
and Air Force 1994). A typical concrete cap extension is shown in Figure 4.31. The
concept of extending caps has been done throughout the Midwest, when the correct
deterioration conditions arise.

Figure 4.31 Typical Concrete Cap Extension to Increase Bearing Surface
4.5.3 Beam Saddle Addition
The saddle restores bearing for beams and caps where they have deteriorated or
been damaged in the bearing area (Army and Air Force 1994; Wipf et al. 2003). A
structural steel saddle can be installed over the cap and under the beam to support the
beam. The saddle should be designed to support appropriate loads and be sized
according to the actual width of beam and cap in the field. After the steel saddle
149

members are fabricated, they should also be painted to prevent corrosion. The following
procedure schematically outlined in Figure 4.32 is typically recommended and followed
(Army and Air Force 1994; Wipf et al. 2003):
Prepare top of cap and beam for good bearing contact between saddle and
concrete.
Cut Neoprene bearing pads to cover areas of both the cap and the beam that is in
contact with the saddle.
Set saddle members at right angles to the cap.
Install the saddle sections under the beam.
Place bearing pads before fastening the two sets of saddle members to each other
(see Figure 4.32).

Figure 4.32 Installation of a Beam Saddle

150

Concrete repairs are the most common repairs conducted throughout Wisconsin.
Due to the wide application of concrete throughout bridge substructures, there are
numerous possible forms of deterioration that could occur. Selecting the most
appropriate repair for a substructure element based on its location and deterioration is
crucial. Repairs that address the true cause of the deterioration should be implemented
with increasing regularity. Adequately dealing with chloride embedded concrete is
crucial to increase the service life of both repairs and bridges.

151

CHAPTER 5 TIMBER SUBSTRUCTURES
Timber is commonly used to build pier columns, pier caps, and piles in bridges.
If it is properly treated or protected, timber is quite durable. However, it is not a durable
material in all environments. When moisture exists, wood may suffer from fungi decay
as shown in Figure 5.1. Fungus decay can be avoided only by treatment with appropriate
preservative agents. Insects may seek food and/or shelter in timber substructure
components and vermin tunnels are often found in timber substructure components.
Other deterioration scenarios found in timber substructures include weathering and
warping caused by repeated dimensional changes due to repeated wetting, chemical
attack, fire, abrasion and mechanical wear, collision or overloading damage, and
unplugged holes (Army and Air Force 1994).
A chipping hammer, an ice pick, and an increment borer (which is a tool that
allows one to bore to different depths within the timber component using something like
a drill bit) are the primary tools used for assessing wood deterioration. The most common
repairs for timber structures are retrofitting timber connections, removing the damaged
portion of the timber member and splicing in a new timber, and removing and replacing
an entire element or component (Army and Air Force 1994). Deteriorated or damaged
timber substructures can be repaired by a variety of methods as discussed in detail in the
following sections.

152

Figure 5.1 Wood Decay in Bent Cap (Army and Air Force 1994)
5.1 Timber Pile Repair
Moisture control and decay were noted as a major cause of deterioration in timber
piles. Vermin tunneling and hollowing of the insides of the timber members can cause
significant cross-sectional loss. This section loss can reduce the strength of the member.
Timber piles can decay or deteriorate to the point where they lose structural integrity.
For a timber bent, typical deterioration points are the pile, cap and bracing as shown in
Figure 5.2. The key to timber pile repair is that the existing piles must have good bearing
(Army and Air Force 1994). The following sections of the review outline a variety of
techniques that are often used to repair compromised piles in timber substructures.
153

Figure 5.2 Timber Bent Check Points (Army and Air Force 1994)
5.1.1 Pile Posting
There have been cases where a timber piles cross-section is completely
compromised or damaged. A technique called pile posting is very convenient for
replacing entire segments of timber pile. A schematic illustrating the concept of pile
posting and its implementation is shown in Figure 5.3. The entire deteriorated section of
the timber pile is removed and the new section is placed with wedges to maintain a gap of
1/8 1/4 inch at both top and bottom. Where new and old sections meet, steep
downward angled holes are bored and spaced 90 degrees apart. The perimeter of each
joint is then sealed using epoxy gel, plastic film or tape. The boreholes are then used to
fill the gaps at the joint with epoxy. Insertion of steel pins into the boreholes
immediately following the epoxy placement effectively bonds the new pile segment to
the existing pile (MnDOT 2011).
154

Figure 5.3 Timber Pile Posting

It should be noted that pile posting requires shoring mechanisms be present to
temporarily support the timber piles loading while a portion of the piles length is being
removed. This can make pile posting more expensive than other techniques. There are
cases where the damaged location of the pile extends below the waterline. In these cases,
it has been recommended that the pile be cut approximately 2 feet below the mud-line or
the permanent moisture line and replaced with the new section (Army and Air Force
1994). Since the pile posting procedure replaces the existing pile with a similar timber
element, continued deterioration may be a concern. If there is extensive insect activity,
or environmental degradation, further protection should be investigated. An impervious
barrier may be implemented in addition to the pile posting if further deterioration is a
concern.

155

5.1.2 Concrete J acketing
There may be situations where a significant length of timber pile needs to be
replaced with subsequent splicing to an existing pile section. The posting procedure
discussed previously could be used with a long section of pile in lieu of a short
replacement section. However, concrete jacketing has also been proposed for replacing
significant-length timber piles and even an entire timber pile to a location below the mud-
line. The reinforced concrete jacket method has been recommended in situations when
the timber pile has lost 15 to 50 percent of its cross-sectional area (Army and Air Force
1994). This simple procedure includes a reinforced concrete jacket with a minimum
cover of 6-inches placed around the pile. This concrete jacket extends a distance above
and below the splice region as shown in Figure 5.4.

Figure 5.4 Timber Pile Replacement

156

The concrete jacket is very similar to the concrete encasement method used for
concrete pier columns. If the concrete cracks and exposes the new timber section to
environmental causes of decay, the pile could continue to deteriorate (MnDOT 2011).
Since concrete deterioration and timber deterioration are caused by different substances,
the concrete jacket offers a more redundant form of protection for timber members than
for concrete members. For the timber member to continue to deteriorate the concrete
must crack, potentially from chloride intrusion, which does not pose as much of a threat
to the timber member. The potential for both forms of deterioration to attack the repair is
more unlikely than the chance of a simple pile posting deteriorating.
5.1.3 Pile Restoration
Pile restoration is a repair technique where only a wedge shaped portion of piling
is replaced rather than the removal of the entire cross section (MnDOT 2011). In this
case the deterioration is localized to a portion of the pile cross-section and only the
damaged wedge section is removed. A replacement section is then fabricated using
treated material. The replacement section is cut slightly smaller and is bonded to the
existing section by applying epoxy to the surfaces of the new and old sections. A metal
band is used to hold the new section in place while the epoxy cures, as shown in Figure
5.5, and is subsequently removed.
157

Figure 5.5 Timber Pile Restoration
5.1.4 Pile Augmentation
Pile augmentation is a mechanical repair method that strengthens members with
additional material. Reinforcing steel gets placed around the pile in the area of
deterioration and the section is wrapped in a fiber reinforced plastic or fabric. The jacket
is then filled with concrete. This repair is done in order to prevent further deterioration.
The use of a reinforced concrete jacket for timber pile augmentation is shown in Figure
5.6. The deteriorated section is not removed when a reinforced concrete jacket is used to
repair timber piles. There is some question with regard to the load transfer mechanisms
present in the pile augmentation approach. For example, the flow of axial forces through
the timber pile to the reinforced concrete jacket and back to the timber pile is
questionable. This technique is recommended for inhibiting further deterioration of an
existing pile when its load carrying capacity with the compromised cross-section remains
sufficient.
158

Figure 5.6 Reinforced Concrete Jacket for Timber Pile Augmentation (MnDOT
2011)

Another method of pile augmentation involves the use of a fiberglass jacket.
Similar to the aforementioned procedure, fiberglass jackets are placed around the existing
pile and a special epoxy grout is poured inside. Many fiberglass jacket repairs do not
require additional reinforcing steel since they provide adequate strength and protection
for the existing timber pile. If the section loss is greater than 25% then a steel reinforcing
cage can be used with a cementitious grout in addition to the epoxy grout. The epoxy
grout is placed at the top and bottom of the void to effectively resist all water penetration.
The maximum allowable water absorption for a fiberglass jacket is 1% (Fox
Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011). An additional benefit of utilizing fiberglass jackets
is that the repair can frequently be accomplished without the need of dewatering (Fox
Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011). Fiberglass jackets are typically filled with an
epoxy grout that has an average tensile bond strength of 345 psi between the grout and
the jacket (Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011). Figure 5.7 shows a deteriorated
159

timber pile prior to installation of a fiberglass jacket, and Figure 5.8 shows the same pile
while the jacket is being installed. Costs are highly dependent upon site conditions and
accessibility, but typical costs range from $600 per linear foot to $1,200 per linear foot
(Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011).

Figure 5.7 Timber Pile Prior to Fiberglass Jacket Repair (Fox Industries/Simpson
Strong Tie 2011)

Figure 5.8 Fiberglass Jacket Installation (Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011)
160

5.1.5 PVC Wrap
For a pile with 10 to 15% of section loss, a 30-mil (milli-inches) PVC sheet can
be used to sheath the damaged section (Army and Air Force 1994). Using a PVC sheet, a
half-round wood pole piece is attached to the vertical edge of the PVC sheet to help in the
wrapping process. Creosote is typically used as a method of protecting timber piles
because it slows deterioration. A pile with creosote bleeding from its surface must first
be wrapped with a sheet of polyethylene film prior to installing the PVC wrap to prevent
a reaction between the PVC and the creosote. Staple lengths of polyethylene foam, -by
3-inches, about 1-inch from the upper and lower horizontal edges of the sheet. Fit the
pole pieces together with one inserted into a pocket attached to the bottom of the other
pole. Roll the excess material onto the combined pole pieces and tighten around the pile
with a special wrench (Army and Air Force 1994). The PVC wrap installation is shown
in Figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9 PVC Wrap for Timber Pile Augmentation
161

5.1.6 FRP Wrap
The use of an FRP wrap for timber pile repair is very rare. While FRP wraps on
timber piles are possible; there are more convenient solutions, such as a preformed
fiberglass jacket. Since FRP wraps need to be embedded within the grout, they become
very difficult to place in a wet condition. There is also concern that the timber could
cause tearing and deterioration of the FRP wrap if it is rough or splintered. Since this is
not a common repair, following manufacturers specifications as well as the WisDOT
special provisions is essential.
5.1.7 Pile Shimming
If a bridge settles or bearing for the superstructure is lost due to the deterioration
of timber piles in a region localized to that in direct contact with a timber pile cap, pile
shimming can be used. To add shims, struts are placed adjacent to the pier and the
stringers are jacked off the cap to an elevation -inch higher than desired. After the
loads are removed from the piles, the decayed top parts of the piles are cut. A shim -
inch less than the space between the cap and pile head is placed into position. The jacks
are then removed and the shim is nailed to the piles (Army and Air Force 1994; Wipf et
al. 2003). Fish plates are also nailed across the repair as shown in Figure 5.10.
162

Figure 5.10 Shimming Timber Piles
5.2 Supplemental Piles
If the necessary equipment is available, replacing a damaged pile may be easier
than repairing it (AASHTO 2008). Replacing a damaged pile from above will likely
require a hole to be cut in the bridge deck. The new pile is then driven through the hole.
Therefore, the deck must be capable of supporting the necessary pile driving equipment
and repair of the roadway surface and deck will be needed. New piles will also likely
need to be located at an angled or offset relative to the existing piles to allow for driving
operations in the vicinity of existing substructure components. Replacement or
supplemental piles may be timber or steel shapes.
5.2.1 Steel Piles
In some cases, supplemental steel H-piles are added to strengthen a timber pile
bent that has been weakened due to deterioration or excessive settlement (Wipf et al.
2003). The piles are driven to a level sufficiently below the pier cap to accommodate a
new support beam, and then are welded or bolted to the support beam. The support
163

beam must be fit snug against the pier cap. In some cases, shim plates may be used to
provide uniform bearing between the top flange of the support beam and the bottom of
the pier cap (Wipf et al. 2003). After new piles are in their positions, the holes in the
deck should be repaired and patched in a suitable manner. A schematic drawing of how
to properly add supplemental steel piles is shown in Figure 5.11. Figure 5.12 shows how
an actual bridge substructure was repaired by adding supplemental steel piles and
sufficient cross bracing. It can be seen in Figure 5.12 that a jacket would have been
impossible to install around the deteriorated piles due to the proximity of the piling to the
abutment. Supplementary steel piles were the best solution due to the constricting site
conditions.

Figure 5.11 Adding Supplemental Steel Piles
164

Figure 5.12 Example of Addition of Supplemental Steel Piles (Wipf et al. 2003)
5.2.2 Timber Piles
Supplemental timber piles can also be installed under a sound pier cap to provide
support after existing piles have deteriorated or settled out of position (Wipf et al. 2003).
This repair involves a similar procedure as that for adding supplemental steel piles. The
new timber pile is driven into its position through the hole in the deck, and then is cut off
165

so that there will be even bearing between the pile cap and the new support beams. The
support beam is wedged into position on top of the new piles as shown in Figure 5.13.
The deck holes are repaired after the new piles are installed.

Figure 5.13 Pile Bent Strengthening with Supplemental Timber Piles
5.3 Timber Sway Bracing Repair
If a timber bent becomes unstable due to deterioration or damage to timber
diagonal bracing, it can be repaired by providing new sway bracing elements. If the
original timber bent does not have sway bracing, a new sway bracing system or
components can be installed using the following procedure (Wipf et. al. 2003). Nails can
166

be used to temporarily fasten the sway bracing to the timber piles. Holes can then be
drilled through both the bracing and the piling. All holes should be treated with a hot oil
preservative before installing the bolts. Placement and tightening of bolts with washers
can then take place. If there is damaged or deteriorated sway bracing in the existing pile
bent, the deteriorated or damaged bracing members are cut off at the pile nearest to the
terminus. The new members are installed by using existing bolt holes in the piles where
it is possible. If the sway bracing must be realigned, new holes in the piles are drilled.
Both old and new holes should be treated with a hot oil preservative followed by a
coating of hot tar (Wipf et al. 2003). Figure 5.14 shows the installation of timber pile
sway bracing.

Figure 5.14 Installation and Repair of Timber Pile Sway Bracing
5.4 Timber Sill Abutment Repair
Timber sill (bench-type) abutments usually consist of logs stacked on top of one
another to form a wall to transfer vertical loads from a bridge superstructure to a concrete
167

footing as shown in Figure 5.15. These particular abutment types are not common in the
United States infrastructure. However, they are included in this document for
completeness. A timber sill abutment may become compromised as a result of differential
vertical settlement and/or rotation. Furthermore, collapse due to rotting of the timber
elements and the lateral earth pressure loads can occur (QGDMR 2005). The Queensland
Government Department of Main Roads categorizes bridges as 5 different prioritization
levels for maintenance purposes. In its Timber Bridge Maintenance Manual, only
prioritization levels 3 to 5 are defined and they are summarized in Table 5.1. Based on
the different prioritization levels, there are different responses for the timber sill abutment
as shown in Table 5.2. The details of these repair activities can be found in the Timber
Bridge Maintenance Manual (QGDMR 2005).

Figure 5.15 Timber Sill Abutment (QGDMR2005)

168

Table 5.1 Condition Prioritization Levels (QGDMR2005)

Condition
State
General Description
5
~unsafe

The structural integrity has been severely compromised and the
structure must be taken out of service
4
~Very Poor

identified serious defects that affect the structures performance and
integrity
Signs of advance deterioration due to section loss,
overstressing, or components are acting differently than
intended.
3
~Poor

defects have been identified which are compromising the
serviceability of structure
Showing signs of deterioration due to loss of protective
coatings and minor section loss

Table 5.2 Timber Sill Abutment Repairs (QGDMR2005)

169

5.5 Timber Corbel Repair
A timber corbel is the support for the ends of the timber girders at piers, its main
function is to transfer vertical and horizontal girder loads at the headstock. Timber
corbels are not common in the United States, but the repair techniques outlined here may
have application in more common timber substructure systems. A timber corbel consists
of round logs or sawn octagonal members as shown in Figure 5.16. It may fail by
crushing or collapse, with severe longitudinal splitting due to section loss from piping
caused by insect or fungi attack. If excessive notching at headstock seating locations
occurs, the corbel may also fail due to bending (QGDMR 2005).
Once the timber corbel is damaged, it is typically replaced using the following
procedure (QGDMR 2005):
Properly shore overlying girder to remove all load from the corbel.
Remove or cut out corbel/girder and corbel/headstock bolts. This will
generally require lifting of curbs and overlying deck planks.
Remove defective corbel.
Install new corbel including drilling and bolt assembly. If existing bolt holes
cannot be reused, a modified hold down to the headstock may be required.
Remove jacks to transfer loads back on to corbel.
Replace deck planks and kerbs (curbs).

170

Figure 5.16 Timber Corbel (QGDMR 2005)
Timber members are only common in substructures as piles. While some bridges
utilize timber for bent caps, sway bracing, abutments or corbels; these bridges are
becoming less common. Repair procedures relevant to timber piles were given the most
focus in order to keep the report relevant. There are a number of ways to protect a timber
pile that has deteriorated at the mud line. Concrete encasements, fiberglass jackets, FRP
wraps, PVC wraps and steel collars all provide viable options for protecting a
deteriorated pile. Typically a cheaper, but less robust, alternative is to replace the
deteriorated section of timber with a new treated section. Whichever process is selected,
attention to the deterioration mechanism and construction procedure is essential.

Headstock
Girders
Connect to Deck
and Kerbs
171

CHAPTER 6 STEEL SUBSTRUCTURES
Structural steel elements can be used for bents, columns, and piles for bridge
substructures. The only common use of structural steel elements in a substructure is as
piling. Since there is only one major element that structural steel is used for, there are
minimal repair methods relating to steel substructures. The major deterioration of steel
substructure components results from corrosion. Structural steel piles can also be
susceptible to local buckling resulting from pile-driving operations (e.g. over driving).
There have been reports of cracking and local buckling in structural steel substructure
components as well (Army and Air Force 1994). Figure 6.1 shows a typical local
buckling of a pile flange in an underwater location. The causes for the corrosive
deterioration of steel substructures typically are exposure to air and moisture, industrial
fumes, deicing agents, seawater, and saltwater-saturated mud. Other sources of
deterioration are excessive thermal strains, overloading of the components, fatigue, stress
concentrations, and fire (Army and Air Force 1994).
There are a wide variety of nondestructive test (NDT) methods that can be used to
assess the deterioration of steel substructures, including visual examination. Dye
penetration can be used to identify the location and extent of surface cracks and surface
defects. Magnetic particle testing can be used to detect flaws in materials and welds, and
radiography can be used to inspect steel members. A coupon can be cut from the steel
substructure component and be tension tested in the laboratory to get accurate estimates
for the material properties and therefore, be used to assess the capacity of the steel
substructure.

172

Figure 6.1 Underwater Picture of Local Buckling of Pile Flange (Avent and Alawady
2005)

The most common repair strategies for steel substructure components involve
adding metal to strengthen cross sections that have been reduced by corrosion or vehicle
impact. Welding or adding cover-plates to repair structural steel cracks caused by fatigue
and vehicle loads is another approach. Steel connections can also frequently be
retrofitted (Army and Air Force 1994).
6.1 Adding Metal to Steel H-Piles
Steel H-piles may be damaged in the form of bent, torn, or cut flanges which may
reduce the cross section, and hence the load-bearing capacity, of the pile (AASHTO
2008). In the section near the vicinity of a water line, steel H-piles may suffer from
severe corrosion. When pile replacement is not practical, the pile may be strengthened
with bolted channels as a temporary measure (Wipf et al. 2003; AASHTO 2008). The
repair process often includes the following steps (AASHTO 2008):
1. Clean the damaged pile.
Local
buckling of
flange
173

2. Locate the extreme limits of the deteriorated section. The repair channel section
should have a length sufficiently longer than the distance between these limits.
3. Thoroughly clean the area to which the channel is to be bolted.
4. Clamp the channel section in place against the pile.
5. Locate and drill holes for high-strength bolts through the channel and the pile
section.
6. Place bolts and secure the channel.
7. Remove the clamps.
8. If the pile repair is above the water, coat the entire area with a protective coating
material.
9. For long-term rehabilitation, steel piles should be encased with a concrete jacket
when practical.
Figure 6.2 includes a schematic illustrating an H-pile repaired with a bolted channel
section.

Figure 6.2 Repair of Steel H-piles with Bolted Channels (Wipf et al. 2003)

174

A cover plate can also be welded to a deteriorated steel pile to strengthen it. The
cover plate is heated after welding one end and then the expanded plate is welded into
place. As the plate cools and contracts, stresses will be added to the cover plate (Army
and Air Force 1994). These residual stresses caused by welding should be carefully
monitored to ensure no detrimental weld-induced distortion of the pile is generated.
Figure 6.3 shows an H-pile repaired with a welded cover plate. ODOT estimates that
installing the stiffener plates should cost around $10/L.F. (ODOT 2012).

Figure 6.3 Repair of Steel H-piles with Welded Cover Plates (Army and Air Force
1994)
6.2 Pile Jacket
Steel H-piles can be severely damaged due to corrosion caused by the continual
wetting and drying of steel when it is in contact with the ground. A concrete filled pile
jacket can be added to steel members to increase strength and prevent future corrosion

175

(Army and Air Force 1994). The encasement of the steel piles is accomplished by filling
a suitable form with Portland-cement grout. After the concrete hardens, the form can
remain in place as part of the jacket as shown in Figure 6.4. The integral jacket provides
protection to steel piles above and below the water.

Figure 6.4 Integral Pile Jacket for Steel Piles
The major steps of installing a pile jacket is listed in the following (Army and Air
Force 1994):
1. Sandblast the surfaces clean of oil, grease, dirt, and corrosion.
2. Place the pile jacket form around the pile.
3. Seal all joints with an epoxy bonding compound and seal the bottom of the form
to the pile.
4. Brace and band the exterior of the form to hold the form in place. Dewater the
form.
5. Fill the bottom 6 inches of the form with epoxy grout filler.
176

6. Fill the form to within 6 inches of the top with a Portland-cement grout filler.
7. Cap the form with a 6-inch fill of epoxy grout.
8. Slope the cap to allow water to run off.
9. Remove the external bracing and banding and clean off the form of any deposited
material.
In addition to the round fiberglass forms that were described above, there are
fiberglass forms that are specifically shaped for H-piles. Since these forms are designed
more specifically for H piling, there are a few different specifications for the installation
procedure. The void between the form and the piling will be much smaller due to the H-
shaped jacket. The standard void should be about -inches minimum, and thus should
only be filled with the special epoxy grout (Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011).
The fiberglass forms are typically manufactured in two separate pieces that can be placed
around the existing H-piling in a relatively easy fashion. Figure 6.5 shows how the
fiberglass jackets could potentially be placed around the steel H-piling.

Figure 6.5 H-Shaped Fiberglass Jackets (Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie 2011)

177

6.3 Concrete Encasement
Another viable option for steel H-piling strengthening is to encase the H-piles in
concrete. This method is similar to jacketing, but the formwork is not permanent, and
only the concrete is left on the piling. This repair is typically cheaper than the use of a
pile jacket because it relies upon standard materials. Since concrete is not as
impermeable as the fiberglass jacket, it is less effective at keeping out moisture, but adds
sufficient strength to the existing piling. The standard procedure to encase an H-pile in
concrete is to clean the steel and encase it in concrete as least 2 feet below the ground or
water line (ODOT 2012). Based on ODOT Bridge Maintenance Manual, the cost is
$20/L.F. for concrete encasement. If stiffener plates are welded over deteriorated areas
before concrete is placed, the cost will be $30/L.F. (ODOT 2012). The stiffener plates
are usually only utilized if portions of the H-piling are completely rusted through. ODOT
expected life of this repair is 20 years (ODOT 2012). Figure 6.6 shows how the repair
can be conducted on a typical bridge with steel piling.

Figure 6.6 Steel Pile Concrete Encasement (ODOT 2012)
178

6.4 Corrosion Protection
Corrosion protection systems such as sacrificial anodes and impressed current
devices can help to provide an effective means of reducing corrosion of a steel pile.
There are several important factors that should be considered when selecting a corrosion
protection system. Since sacrificial anodes will need to be welded onto the steel pile,
access becomes a serious concern. In addition to access issues, the anodes will be visible
and have the potential to be targets for vandalism if the protected portion of the pile is
located above the ground line. Sacrificial anode jackets provide a means of covering the
anodes and reducing their visibility. These products are typically reserved for marine
environments; however, the corrosion protection, cross section recovery, and vandalism
deterrence may make them appropriate for all environments.
6.4.1 Anodes
To prevent corrosion for new and repaired steel H-piles, the most important factor
is to avoid exposure to water and soil. Therefore, painting and watertight encasement of
steel members and joints is important for protecting steel piles from corrosion. Cathodic
protection involves attaching zinc or aluminum anodes to the steel H-piles to abate
corrosion of steel in salt or brackish water (Figure 6.7). Small zinc anodes are used when
less than 8 linear feet of pile is exposed. Large zinc or aluminum anodes are used when
greater than 8 linear feet of the pile is exposed (Army and Air Force 1994). The zinc
anodes will corrode over time, and their protection of the steel pile will gradually
decrease. Inspections can be extremely important for observing whether or not the
anodes are still providing adequate protection for the member.
179

Figure 6.7 Anodes Placed on Steel H piles for Corrosion Protection
6.4.2 Anode Embedded J acket
A relatively unique solution to H-pile corrosion incorporates both fiberglass
jackets and sacrificial anodes. Fiberglass jackets are a desirable means of preventing
corrosion because they inhibit chloride intrusion and provide a protective barrier for the
piling. If the corrosion is severe, and chlorides cannot be completely removed from the
piling, then zinc anodes can be embedded within the jacket to prevent further corrosion.
An example of this product can be seen in Figure 6.8. The jacket is typically filled with a
cement-based grout to fill the void between pile and jacket (Vector Corrosion
Technologies 2010a). Since this rehabilitation incorporates two relatively unique repair
methods, the cost should be expected to be higher than traditional repair methods. The
estimated life of the repair can be anywhere from 10 to 35 years depending on how the
jacket is designed (Vector Corrosion Technologies 2010a). This specialized jacket is
ideal for high chloride environments, and may only be applicable for such conditions
180

depending upon the cost of the jacket. Since the anodes come preinstalled in the jacket,
the time of the installation may be decreased when compared to a typical anode repair
(Vector Corrosion Technologies 2010a). Depending upon the number of piles that need
to be repaired, this time savings may result in a significant cost savings for the project.

Figure 6.8 FRP Jacket with Embedded Anodes (Vector Corrosion Technologies
2010a)
The only common substructure member composed out of steel is piles. This
limits the number of available repair methods. Steel piles typically experience section
loss at the waterline from the continual wetting and drying of the member. This can
typically be rectified by adding steel to the cross section by welding or bolting. Further
protection against deterioration can be provided if a concrete encasement is also
incorporated for the repair. Fiberglass jackets that are form fitted to the specific H-pile
can be utilized for the repair, and have the unique advantage of not requiring dewatering.
181

If corrosion is a serious concern for H-piles, sacrificial anodes can be combined with any
of the included repairs in order to create further protection. Creating a protective barrier
that will inhibit future deterioration is the main purpose of the majority of steel pile
repairs.

182

CHAPTER 7 SCOUR COUNTERMEASURES
Scour is the removal of geotechnical material, such as sand and rocks, from the
near vicinity and beneath bridge abutments and/or piers. It can effectively reduce the
bearing capacity of individual piles and pile groups, undermine pier and abutment
footings, and cut into the bank. It is one of major reasons for bridge substructure failures.
Therefore, when scour is detected on a bridge substructure, it must be addressed as soon
as possible. Placing a tremie encasement around the bottom of the pier and injecting
concrete or mortar into the encasement can make up the loss of bearing of the piles due to
scour (Army and Air Force 1994) and is one method of substructure repair when scour is
detected (Fitch 2003). Installation of riprap (if not already present from initial
construction) is another common repair method to prevent further scour at bridge
abutments. Some other countermeasure systems, such as partially grouted riprap and
geocontainers, articulating concrete block systems, gabion mattresses, and grout-filled
mattresses, can also be used to protect bridge piers from scour (Lagasse et al. 2007).
There are also several river stabilization techniques that have been used to prevent future
scour from occurring.
7.1 Piles
The excavation or removal of the soil foundation from beneath the substructure
undermines the load carrying capacity of the bridge and can result in excessive
settlement. A pier usually creates vertical and horizontal vortices in the water flow,
which create a scour hole around the pier (Marek 2009). When scour reduces the
183

effective bearing of the piles of a pier, additional piles or a concrete footing can be added
to the base of the pier to make up for the lost bearing.
When a concrete footing is added to the base of the pier, a tremie encasement is
needed around the bottom of the pier as shown in Figure 7.1. The concrete will displace
the water from within the encasement. The formwork or encasement can be removed
after the concrete is cured. In order to improve the bond between the pile and the new
footing, nails or spikes can be driven into timber piles. For steel piles, shear studs may be
utilized, and rebar can be placed in drilled holes within the concrete piles to improve the
bond (Army and Air Force 1994).

Figure 7.1 Forming a Footing with a Tremie Encasement
7.2 Piers
Piers are the most common location for scour to occur on bridge substructures.
Since they are typically located in the middle of the river, vortices are created which
remove the sediment around the bridge pier. The most common inspection technique for
184

scour around piers utilizes rods to determine if there is a drop in streambed elevation in
the vicinity of the pier. Due to the inexact nature if the inspection and the potential for
failure of the bridge, scour critical substructures should be inspected frequently.
7.2.1 Pier Structural Repairs
When footings are undermined, the most common repair method is to fill the void
beneath the foundation area with a concrete grout or crushed stone. To place grout, some
type of formwork must be used to confine the grout (Army and Air Force 1994). When
concrete grout is chosen as the repair material, three types of formwork are commonly
used. The three common types of formwork are tremie encasement, confinement walls,
and flexible fabric.
Extended Footings
A tremie encasement is a steel, wood, or concrete form placed around the existing
footing to re-establish the foundation as shown in Figure 7.1. The form allows the
concrete grout to be pumped under the eroded footing and displace the water in the
encasement through vents (Army and Air Force 1994). The larger footing will help to
prevent future settlement, but is only suitable for relatively low scour depths (Agrawal
2005). Extended footings are an approved structural countermeasure for scour and are
considered low maintenance (FHWA 2009).
Confinement walls are made of stone, sandbags, or bags filled with riprap. They
are placed along the faces of the footing and extend through the mud layer of the river
bottom as shown in Figure 7.2. The grout is injected into the cavity below the footing to
185

push water out through the voids in the wall (Army and Air Force 1994). The voids in
the walls are also filled with grout during this operation. Therefore, the walls are sealed
after grout is cured.

Figure 7.2 Forming a Footing with Confining Walls (Army and Air Force 1994)

The formwork can also be made by a closed bag of flexible fabric, such as canvas,
nylon, etc., with grout injection ports as shown in Figure 7.3. Grout is pumped into the
bag and it expands to fill the cavity. The injection port is then closed and fabric confines
the grout until it is cured (Army and Air Force 1994).

Figure 7.3 Forming a Footing with Flexible Fabric (Army and Air Force 1994)

186

Backfill
If the foundation element affected by scour is above the water, a good structural
fill material can be compacted into the erosion cavity to fill the void. If the streambed is
eroded below the base of the footing, the compacted fill will be extended on a slope of 2
to 1 from the current competent streambed to the base of the footing. Riprap should also
be placed around the footing to prevent further scouring (Army and Air Force 1994). If
the footing with scour is underwater, crushed stone is used as the fill material as shown in
Figure 7.4. The size of stone should be big enough to resist the steam current in order to
avoid being removed by the current.

Figure 7.4 Use of Crushed Stone Fill to Repair Scour Damage
Concrete Apron Wall
A concrete apron wall can be utilized as a permanent structural repair for piers
that have experienced scour. For this repair, concrete walls are cast against the sides of
the footing and extended down to bedrock. The extension down to bedrock gives the
repair added strength, but also requires the use of a cofferdam and dewatering for the
construction to proceed. A schematic of the repair is shown in Figure 7.5. It can be seen
187

in the drawing that riprap is also utilized as another means of protection against future
scour. This repair is desired for its permanent nature, and is applicable for most scour
situations (Agrawal 2005).

Figure 7.5 Concrete Apron Wall Pier Repair
Under-pinning
A relatively expensive solution to settlement caused by scour is to underpin the
foundation of the pier. This is not a common practice throughout the United States, but
the low maintenance required after the repair is completed is preferable in some
situations (FHWA 2009). The pier can be underpinned with preplaced aggregate and
pressure grouting, C.I.P. concrete or concrete filled fiber bags (Agrawal 2005). The
intent with this repair is to lower the foundation of the pier below the scour depth, thus
reducing the likelihood that scour will reoccur on the structure. Since this repair requires
work to be completed below the footing, the bridge must be closed to traffic while the
work is being completed. The mandatory closure of the structure, and the fact that it is
188

not appropriate for older masonry footings, decreases the usefulness of the repair for
many bridges (Agrawal 2005). Despite the limitations on the repair method, it is used
because it provides extensive repair for severe scour degradation.
Mini Piles
The use of mini piles to strengthen a pier footing is a specific form of
underpinning. This process involves driving relatively short length piles through a
footing to provide increased stability and strength. This repair has several benefits over
traditional underpinning methods. Mini piles are a much quicker rehabilitation method
than the typical attempts of extending the footing. The process involves drilling through
the footing, pumping tremie grout in, adding reinforcement, injecting pressure grout, then
removing the casing (Agrawal 2005). A schematic of the aforementioned procedure can
be seen in Figure 7.6. The construction of the mini piles results in minimal vibration, and
can be completed in areas where traditional pile driving would not be possible (Agrawal
2005). Mini piles are an expensive repair to implement, but can be useful if the correct
site conditions are met.
189

Figure 7.6 Mini Pile Installation Schematic (Agrawal 2005)
7.2.2 Pier Scour Armoring
If the scour has not caused undermining of the pier footing to occur, then there are
several other options available to protect the pier. A common technique throughout the
United States is the use of correctly sized and placed riprap. Since riprap is relatively
inexpensive it has been used for a vast number of scour issues. Concrete armor units
have been used throughout Kentucky and are seen as a longer lasting solution to scour
than riprap. Concrete armor units are created in a variety of shapes that interlock to
provide stability. They can be placed with other concrete armor units or with riprap and
can protect bridge piers as well as bank slope protection. In addition to the armoring
techniques that were mentioned, flow altering techniques have been used to protect
against scour. Sacrificial piles have been noted for scour depth reductions, but have
unique limitations on when they can be utilized. Placing collars around bridge piers has
also reduced the scour that would typically be experienced.
190

Riprap
The most common solution to pier scour is the utilization of riprap. An important
element in the installation of riprap is the use of a geotextile fabric. Geotextile fabrics
limit substrate particle erosion from occurring, which could undermine the riprap (FHWA
2009). The geotextile fabric is typically only placed 2/3 of the distance that the riprap is
placed from the pier (typically twice the pier width) (Lagasse et. al. 2007). The correct
size of the riprap is highly dependent on the velocity of the flow of the water. If the
riprap is not adequately sized, then it will be washed out and provide no protection
against scour. Since riprap is a flexible repair, if only a few stones are washed away it
will not prove detrimental to the repair life (Lagasse et. al. 2007). The ease of the repair
makes it very desirable for common use.
Partially Grouted Riprap
The technical specifications for placement of partially grouted riprap are very
similar to those for normal riprap. One of the main differences between partially grouted
riprap and standard riprap is that smaller stones can be used for partially grouted riprap.
Since the grout is used, the repair still has adequate stability without sacrificing flexibility
(Lagasse et. al. 2007). In addition to being able to use smaller stones, the partially
grouted riprap does not need to cover as much area as the standard riprap. Partially
grouted riprap is best utilized when placed one and a half times the pier width away from
the pier (Lagasse et. al. 2007). This could potentially result in a significant savings since
standard riprap is placed up to twice the width of the pier away from the pier. The
correct placement of partially grouted riprap is shown in Figure 7.7. It can be seen in the
191

diagram that the top of the riprap should not go above the level of the bed, and should be
placed on top of a geotextile filter.

Figure 7.7 Partially Grouted Riprap Pier Placement
Sheet Piles with Riprap
Sheet piles have frequently been combined with riprap to provide a permanent
shield that will prevent water flow from causing scour on the pier foundation. The
correct placement of sheet piles could effectively dewater the area around the pier. Since
the sheet piles absorb most of the energy from the water flow, then scour will typically
occur at the base of the sheet pile. Riprap is utilized as a means of preventing scour from
becoming a deterioration issue on the sheet piles. Due to the equipment required and
possible site conditions, it is difficult to place the sheet piles effectively. In addition to
placement issues, rust may be a concern if the water in contact with the sheet piles has a
192

high chloride content. The effectiveness of this repair is still under question. Some
sources believe it is appropriate for high scour situations (Agrawal 2005), while others
see it as only partially effective (FHWA 2009). Figure 7.8 displays how a cofferdam
could be created using the steel sheet piles to protect the bridge pier. It can be seen in the
photo that the sheet piles form a large protective ring around the bridge pier. If the site
conditions are correct, then sheet piles and riprap can effectively protect a pier foundation
from scour.

Figure 7.8 Sheet Pile and Riprap Pier Protection
Concrete Armor Units
A relatively uncommon solution for pier scour protection is the use of concrete
armor units. The Kentucky Department of Transportation has seen success using the A-
Jacks brand of concrete armor units. Figure 7.9 provides a schematic of several
different types of concrete armor units that are available in the United States. The
increased stability offered by concrete armor units have made them a viable option when
193

the required riprap size is not possible or cost-effective to attain. Lab tests have shown
that concrete armor units typically reduce scour between 70% and 95% (Lagasse et. al.
2007). An added benefit of concrete armor units is the increased permeability when
compared to other scour protection systems. The concrete armor units are sized based on
the typical velocity of the river. A 2-foot large A-Jacks armor unit can withstand a
velocity of 22 feet per second and usually costs between $30 and $45 per unit. The
concrete armor units can also be made up to 96-inches tall and can cost as much as
$2,250 per unit (Contech 2011). Figure 7.10 shows how the concrete armor units could
be placed around a pier to provide scour protection. When the concrete armor units are
placed around a pier, it is usually recommended that a geotextile fabric be used for the
same purpose that it would be used for riprap (FHWA 2009). Like riprap, concrete armor
units have been used to protect slope embankments and have been identified for their
ability to dissipate the energy inherent in the water flow.

Figure 7.9 Concrete Armor Units (FHWA 2009)

194

Figure 7.10 A-Jacks Pier Scour Protection (FHWA 2009)
Sacrificial Piles
Sacrificial piles have been relied upon as flow-altering devices that can prevent
scour from occurring at bridge piers. The piles prevent scour from occurring because
they deflect the flow of the water away from the bridge pier. One of the best
configurations for sacrificial piles is a triangle placed upstream of the bridge pier. This
technique has shown to provide a 50% scour reduction during laboratory testing (Melville
1999). The limitations that are involved with the use of sacrificial piles have made them
difficult to implement. Even though the sacrificial piles prevent scour from occurring on
the bridge pier, scour has been observed on the individual piles. When the flow of the
river changes and the river meanders in one direction or the other, the sacrificial piles
may not provide any protection for the pier (Melville 1999). The triangular arrangement
of the piles requires the flow to be properly aligned in order for the piles to be effective.
195

Because of the problems that could occur after placement of the sacrificial piles, they are
only recommended if the river flow is sure to remain constant in direction, and the
intensity is small enough to not cause scour on the individual piles (Melville 1999).
Collars
For a bridge pier, scour is typically a result of a down flow of water due to the
pier disrupting the water flow. Collars have been researched to prevent this down flow of
water from removing sediment around the pier. A series of issues have been discovered
when a collar is implemented on a pier. The collar is ideally placed at the level of the
existing streambed. Even with this placement, a collar will divide the flow of water into
two separate sections, which can be seen in Figure 7.11. As seen in the figure, scour will
still occur with the collar, but the severity of scour upstream of the pier will be reduced.
Experiments have also discovered that scour will start to occur downstream of the pier
once the collar is placed (Zarrati 2006). A combination of collars and riprap has yielded
a scour reduction of up to 60% (Zarrati 2006). Even though the collar reduces the rate of
scour the technology of collars is still seen as experimental, and the severity of scour
holes that occur downstream of the pier have prevented its implementation.

Figure 7.11 Water Flow due to a Steel Collar around a Pier (Zarrati 2006)
196

Gabion Mattresses
Gabions have a history of being used for streambank protection, but recent
research has been conducted using gabions as a pier scour countermeasure. The use of
gabions allows smaller stones to be used than traditional riprap would require. Studies
have shown that smaller wire gabions will provide the same amount of protection as
larger riprap (Yoon 2005). The gabion mattress has been studied as a pier scour
countermeasure and is most effective when it is placed around the pier at a distance of
two times the pier width (Lagasse et. al. 2007). A schematic of how to place the gabion
mattresses to ensure maximum efficiency is shown in Figure 7.12. It is important that the
gabion mattresses are connected to one another and the pier to increase the stability and
reliability of the repair. There are several limitations regarding when gabion mattresses
may be utilized. Since gabion mattresses have not been used frequently, there is a lack of
knowledge about how they will react for long term repairs. Gabion mattresses are an
approved solution for local scour armoring of abutments and piers (FHWA 2009).
However, they are only recommended for sand or fine stream beds and non-saline water,
to prevent possible deterioration (Lagasse et. al. 2007). Gabion mattresses usually cost
between $30 and $60 per cubic yard, and can withstand a typical velocity of 16 feet per
second (Contech 2011).
197

Figure 7.12 Placement of Gabion Mattress
Grout Filled Mattresses
Grout filled mattresses have not been a common solution to pier scour problems
in the past. They are typically made of two layers of fabric that are sewn into
compartments, through which the grout can flow. A schematic of the correct placement
of a grout filled mattress around a bridge pier can be seen in Figure 7.13. It can be
observed in the diagram that the grout filled mattresses should extend twice the diameter
of the pier in every direction. The use of grout filled mattresses is desirable since they
involve quick installation and do not require dewatering. Since pier scour
countermeasures require flexibility and permeability, selected grout filled mattresses
should have weep holes and small diameter ducts (Lagasse et. al. 2007). Research has
been conducted which indicates that grout filled mattresses may be an effective solution,
198

but have limitations on when they should be utilized. The grout filled mattresses failed in
testing when dune-type bed forms were present in live-bed conditions (Lagasse et. al.
2007). The use of a grout seal between the pier and the mattress ensures that sediments
will not rise and cause failure of the repair (FHWA 2009).

Figure 7.13 Placement of Grout Filled Mattress
Articulating Concrete Blocks
Articulating concrete blocks are typically used for bank protection, but have also
been found to be effective if used for pier scour protection. They are approved for local
scour armoring and revetments of both piers and abutments (FHWA 2009). A schematic
of the correct placement of articulating concrete block systems is shown in Figure 7.14.
Similar to gabion mattresses and grout filled mattresses, the most effective
199

implementation of articulating concrete blocks placed them a minimum of twice the
width of the pier around the structure, with a filter beneath. Contrary to grout filled
mattresses, articulating concrete blocks can be used in dune-type bed forms, but require
separate design considerations (Lagasse et. al. 2007). The success of the repair is highly
dependent on the level of contact achieved between the articulating concrete blocks and
the subgrade. The permeability offered by the blocks has made the repair successful
during laboratory testing. The individual articulating blocks range in size depending
upon which manufacturer is selected. A 6-inch articulating concrete block can resist
typical velocities ranging from 13 to 29 feet per second and can cost between $90 and
$127.50 per square yard (Contech 2011).

Figure 7.14 Placement of Articulating Concrete Block System

200

7.3 Abutments
Since abutments are commonly placed away from the streambed, scour is not a
typical concern for abutments. Due to the infrequency of abutment scour deterioration,
research has not been conducted to the extent as the repair methods for pier scour. Many
of the similar repairs can be used for structural repairs and armoring techniques, with
modified specifications from the pier scour procedure.
7.3.1 Structural Scour Countermeasures
The use of structural scour countermeasures for abutments is focused on the
lowering of the foundation. Since abutment scouring is rare, it is typically resolved using
an armoring technique. Structural countermeasures are useful alternatives since they
lower the foundation below the scour line and usually incorporate some type of armoring
technique to prevent future scour from occurring.
Lower Foundation
Scour around the base of abutments can be repaired in a manner similar to that
used for the pier footings by filling the void foundation area with a concrete grout. In
order to prevent settlement during the repair, the abutment should be shored up. After the
abutment is shored up, any loose material in the scoured area is removed. Bolts are set
into the abutment face along the length of the abutment. These bolts should extend a
sufficient distance from the abutment face and be adequately spaced. These bolts are
used to connect an expansion shield to the abutment as shown in Figure 7.15. Concrete is
then placed behind the shield to fill the erosion cavity and the space between the shield
201

and abutment face. Riprap should be placed on a 2 to 1 slope to prevent future scouring
(Army and Air Force 1994). This repair is considered to be widely used, and requires
moderate maintenance throughout the repair life (FHWA 2009). Lowering the
foundation of an abutment below the estimated scour depth can prevent loss of structural
integrity due to a reduced bearing area from scour. Since this repair typically requires
dewatering of the area, other methods are often chosen for scour repairs.

Figure 7.15 Lower Foundation Abutment Scour Repair
Concrete Apron Wall
A concrete apron wall can be utilized as a permanent structural repair for
abutments that have experienced scour. For this repair, a concrete wall is cast against the
stream side of the abutment and extended down at least eight feet. Riprap is typically
utilized as another means of protection against future scour. Special attention should be
paid to the riprap placement. The riprap will help to ensure that the new apron wall is not
undermined due to scour. The lost soil below the abutment should also be filled with
concrete in order to reintroduce bearing capacity. A detailed drawing of this repair can
202

be seen in Figure 7.16. This repair is desired for its permanent nature, and is applicable
for most scour situations (Agrawal 2005).

Figure 7.16 Concrete Apron Wall Abutment Scour Repair
7.3.2 Abutment Scour Armoring
The countermeasures that are available to protect an abutment against scour are
very similar to those used to protect a pier. The options available for abutment protection
are less numerous than those available for pier protection. Riprap, partially grouted
riprap, and steel sheet piles with riprap can all still be used for bridge abutments. In
addition to the common riprap solutions, gabion mattresses, grout filled mattresses and
articulating concrete blocks have been highlighted for their ability to effectively armor
abutments.
Riprap
As with pier scour armoring, riprap is the most common technique to protect
abutments from scour. Riprap is used frequently because of its simple construction,
203

flexibility, permeability, and ease of repair. The performance of the repair is highly
dependent on the correct placement of the stone at the abutment (Barkdoll et. al. 2007).
If the riprap is individually placed, as opposed to being end dumped, the geotechnical
blanket becomes much more effective. Provided that the riprap is sized correctly it is
considered an effective repair that requires moderate to high maintenance (FHWA 2009).
Typical abutment riprap placement can be seen in Figure 7.17. Since the cost of riprap is
high in some areas throughout the United States, there are several other solutions that
have been used to protect abutments from local scour.

Figure 7.17 Abutment Riprap Scour Repair
Partially grouted riprap is a very similar repair to standard riprap, but offers
several improvements in performance. As with the partially grouted riprap that is used
for pier scour protection, the partially grouted riprap used for abutment protection utilizes
a smaller stone size, increases stability, and retains permeability. Typical partially
grouted riprap repair details are shown in Figure 7.18. Partially grouted riprap is seen as
a low maintenance means of protecting bridge abutments, but has not been initiated
204

throughout the United States (FHWA 2009). Although partially grouted riprap reduces
the amount of riprap that is required to protect the abutment, the cost may still be a
concern if riprap costs are relatively high. Since the procedure has not commonly been
done throughout the United States, testing is also required to ensure that adequate grout
coverage is achieved during placement.

Figure 7.18 Abutment Partially Grouted Riprap Scour Repair
Sheet Piles
Sheet piles have been utilized around bridge abutments throughout the United
States. As with the use of sheet piles to protect bridge piers, this technique is only
designated as a possible application and requires low to moderate maintenance (FHWA
2009). In order to effectively protect the abutment, a sheet pile skirt is typically placed
around the abutment. The correct placement of the skirt can be seen in Figure 7.19. The
sheet piles are placed on all sides of the abutment below the estimated scour depth. As
with the pier armoring, if the sheet piles need to be placed a farther distance away from
the abutment, then riprap can be utilized as an infill (Barkdoll et. al. 2007). While
constructability issues have prevented the sheet piles from being frequently utilized, they
are an appropriate armoring technique if the site conditions allow proper placement.
205

Figure 7.19 Sheet Pile Skirt Abutment Scour Protection
Gabions
Gabions have been used frequently as a means of armoring an abutment against
potential scour. They are recommended for both pier and abutment armoring and require
moderate maintenance (FHWA 2009). The gabions are advantageous in many situations
since a lower rock size typically results in a lower cost than traditional riprap. In addition
to the lower rock size, there are typically enough voids that vegetation growth can be
achieved. There is concern of corrosion and potential vandalism of the wire cages
(Agrawala 2005). If the wire breaks, then the gabion will be severely less effective since
smaller riprap is utilized. The corrosion concern can be mitigated if the wire is coated
prior to placement of the gabion system. When gabions are placed against an abutment,
vandalism needs to be considered since the armoring will be easily accessible in most
situations. The typical placement of gabions at an abutment can be seen in Figure 7.20.
The gabion basket typically costs between $100 and $125 per cubic yard (Contech 2011).
206

Figure 7.20 Abutment Gabion Scour Protection
Grout Filled Mattresses
Grout filled mattresses are a rarely utilized solution for protecting bridge
abutments from local scour. They are approved for abutment armoring, but require
moderate to high maintenance (FHWA 2009). The largest advantage of utilizing grout
filled mattresses is that transporting the mattresses is simple and economical. The
mattresses are typically filled with grout once they have been placed on site, which
makes the mattresses easier to place. Grout filled mattresses are also an improvement
upon riprap since no geotextile filter is required (Barkdoll et. al. 2007). There are several
limitations which have prevented grout filled mattresses from becoming a common
repair. Grout filled mattresses are only suitable for sandy soils, and there are not many
studies that address their effectiveness at preventing scour around abutments. A
schematic of the grout filled mattress repair for abutments can be seen in Figure 7.21.
207

Figure 7.21 Abutment Grout Filled Mattress Scour Protection
Articulating concrete blocks are another method that can be used to protect
abutments from scour. Most of the research that has been completed on articulating
concrete blocks has studied them as a means of pier scour protection. Despite the lack of
research that has been done on their performance, they are still recommended and are
considered low to medium maintenance (FHWA 2009). Laboratory testing indicated that
scour still occurred around the articulating concrete blocks, but the repair method did not
fail. A picture of the laboratory test can be seen in Figure 7.22. After the test was
completed the concrete blocks stayed connected and provided continuous protection for
the abutment (Hoe 2001).
208

Figure 7.22 Articulating Concrete Block Abutment Scour Protection (Hoe 2001)
Articulating concrete blocks are typically emphasized for the low maintenance,
permeability and stability that is inherent in the structure. There is concern regarding
corrosion of any steel cables that may be tying the elements together. Should these steel
cables rust or break, the system will not be as reliable and the corrosion could affect
water quality (Agrawal 2005). The repair could potentially be expensive depending upon
how the specific articulating concrete block system needs to be assembled and whether or
not accessibility is an issue.
7.4 Bank Slope
Erosion under and around a concrete slope protector can be repaired using riprap,
partially grouted riprap, articulating concrete blocks, or may require extending the
209

protector. The design and construction procedures for each method vary, but they all
attempt to provide a protective barrier to prevent future erosion.
Riprap
Riprap is the most commonly used procedure to protect bank slopes from future
erosion. Figure 7.23 shows a bank repaired using stone riprap. The riprap should be
extended above the face of the concrete to protect from future scouring (Army and Air
Force 1994). The appropriate sizing of riprap during the design procedure is essential to
ensure that the stones are not washed out. Partially grouted riprap and articulating
concrete blocks provide added stability over standard riprap, which reduces the threat of
washout.

Figure 7.23 Riprap Bank Slope Repair
Protector Extension
Bank slopes can also be repaired by extending the protector. The loose material is
removed from the scour hole and the hole is backfilled with sand or gravel before the
repair. A ground mold is formed in the backfill and concrete is placed into it. If the
210

scour is under the protector, a hole is cut in the protector above the erosion cavity and the
backfill or grout is placed through this hole (Army and Air Force 1994). A typical
concrete bank protector extension is shown in Figure 7.24.

Figure 7.24 Concrete Bank Protector Extension
The implementation of partially grouted riprap has also frequently been used for
bank slope protection. Partially grouted is typically more effective than fully grouted
riprap because it improves upon the stability of loose riprap, but remains flexible and
permeable (FHWA 2009). Large voids are desirable for partially grouted riprap, and
grout should be placed at the contact points as seen in Figure 7.25. Partially grouted
riprap is a common repair in Europe, and is beginning to gain popularity throughout the
United States because it provides a stable, yet flexible, armor for scour protection.
211

Figure 7.25 Partially Grouted Riprap (FHWA 2009)
Another product that has been used for bank slope protection is articulating
concrete blocks. Articulating concrete blocks are an approved method for armoring bank
slopes (FHWA 2009). Since the individual units are typically connected by cables, more
free space is made available for vegetation growth along the bank slope. The cables also
allow a smaller size of articulating concrete block to be utilized than riprap since the
repair acts as a single unit, and garners additional strength through the interaction. A
schematic of how the articulating concrete block system is typically placed as bank slope
protection can be seen in Figure 7.26. Cost savings over traditional riprap can be
achieved depending upon controlling site conditions. The cost for typical articulating
concrete block systems can range from $82.50/SY to $135.00/SY (Contech 2011).
212

Figure 7.26 Articulated Concrete Block Bank Slope Protection
7.5 River Stabilization
If the use of an armoring technique alone is not sufficient in protecting a
substructure from scour, several other steps can be taken to protect the bridge. In the case
of a river which is high-energy and highly erosive, there are several structures that can be
placed upstream of the bridge in order to dissipate the energy of the flow (WSDOT
2010).
Bank Barbs
Bank barbs can be used to shift the deepest part of the channel away from slope
protection, abutments or piers and prevent undermining from occurring. Barbs will not
do anything to repair scour that has already occurred on substructure members, but can be
used to prevent further scour. An example of how the barbs are typically placed within a
channel can be seen in Figure 7.27. It is evident in the figure that the flow of the river is
directed away from the bank where the barbs are placed. In addition to redirecting flow,
213

barbs add roughness to the channel which decreases the energy that will be experienced
by the bridge substructure downstream (WSDOT 2010). The decrease in energy of the
flow will reduce the possibility of scour occurring on the substructure elements. Barbs
are also approved as a means to change flow direction, induce deposition, and reduce
stream velocity (Raina 1996). Stream barbs are primarily used for lateral stream
instability, but have been identified as being applicable for local scour occurring at
abutments and piers. The estimated maintenance that will be required after the barbs are
placed is low when compared to other scour countermeasures (FHWA 2009).

Figure 7.27 River Barb Implementation
Both permeable and impermeable barbs have been examined for use as flow
altering devices. It is common to utilize riprap to create a barb, which usually results in
an impermeable and expensive structure. Impermeable barbs can cause flow
disturbances, bank erosion, and lateral stream corrosion (Raina 1996). Permeable barbs
are a less common choice, but have several benefits over the traditional use of riprap. If
the permeable barbs are placed at right angles to the banks, or inclined downstream, they
214

can usually provide the same desired result as impermeable spurs (Raina 1996).
Permeable barbs also do not cause lateral stream corrosion, are flexible and require less
maintenance (Raina 1996). If the correct system is designed and implemented,
permeable barbs can be less costly and more efficient than traditional impermeable barbs.
Engineered Log Jam
Another method that is used to reduce the energy of the water flow is an
engineered log jam. An engineered log jam is usually composed of large timber pieces
that still contain branches and roots. The logs are primarily used in an attempt to increase
the friction of the channel and dissipate the energy of the water flow, thereby preventing
erosion. An example of engineered log jam placement can be seen in Figure 7.28.
Engineered log jams are considered to be experimental, but have proven to be successful
in protecting banks and substructure members (WSDOT 2010).

Figure 7.28 Engineered Log Jam Implementation

215

Check Dams
Check dams are commonly used to increase vertical stream stability. The
secondary effects of a check dam help prevent local scour at abutments and piers and
contraction scour (FHWA 2009). Check dams can be constructed using sheet pile, riprap,
gabions, concrete or grout filled mattresses downstream of the bridge structure that is
scour critical (Raina 1996). This placement ensures that the streambed is at a stable
elevation around the bridge substructure, which reduces the potential for scour to occur.
An example of check dam placement can be seen in Figure 7.29. The velocity of the
flow upstream of the structure is reduced due to the placement of the check dam. Erosion
has been known to occur downstream of check dams, so correct placement and design is
critical for proper effectiveness (FHWA 2009).

Figure 7.29 Check Dam Placement
There are a wide variety of options available to reduce and repair scour on bridge
substructures. The repairs were separated into distinct categories to further differentiate
216

them. Structural repairs are designated as repairs which increase bearing of the existing
foundation, which could be accomplished by extending the footing below the scour line
or underpinning the existing foundation. Armoring techniques are repairs which place a
barrier to prevent erosion of the substrate. Both the structural repairs and armoring
techniques can be utilized on piers or abutments when the conditions are appropriate. As
a means of reducing the erosive capacity of the water, a river stabilization method can be
utilized. Depending on what stage the scour is presently in; a structural repair, armoring
technique or river stabilization may be the most appropriate method.

217

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
FUTURE RESEARCH
8.1 Summary
The research team conducted a review of published material regarding bridge
repair. All fifty state D.O.T.s were researched for relevant manuals. National
publications, produced by the FHWA and the Army and Air Force, were also analyzed.
All elements of substructure deterioration were considered, including general concrete
deterioration and scour. The absence of specific documentation for substructure repair
was evident throughout the research process.
To determine common repair practices and their success rates, the research team
surveyed maintenance engineers throughout the United States. The survey, composed of
nine questions, was sent to 90 maintenance engineers and generated a response rate of
30%. It was determined from the survey that concrete surface repair is the most common
repair technique, and is also viewed as the most unreliable. It was identified as the least
effective repair, accounting for 40% of the responses. The most reliable repair was the
correct sizing and use of riprap. Unique and successful repair techniques were also
collected from the survey. The use of sacrificial anodes, concrete armor units and
concrete encasements were reported for their effective nature. The survey gave the
research team a guide for the state of practice and estimated longevity of bridge
substructure repairs.
The research team visited 8 bridges throughout the Southeast and Southwest
regions of WisDOT. These bridges were documented, both for their typical
deteriorations and unique repair methods. Through these bridges it was determined that
218

the damage caused by deicing chemicals is extensive and varying. Improper expansion
joint maintenance has accounted for a large portion of deterioration throughout
Wisconsins infrastructure. Bridges were visited where pier caps and bridge seats were
directly below an expansion joint. These members typically showed signs of spalling and
reinforcement corrosion due to chloride intrusion. Deicing chemicals becoming
embedded within snowpack on concrete columns was also observed to cause a large
portion of the observed deterioration.
In addition to observing deterioration throughout Wisconsins infrastructure, the
research team observed a number of unique repairs. A concrete encasement on pier
columns was observed that had been in place for 18 years. At the time of the site visit the
encasements were experiencing some delamination, but were still in very good condition.
No spalling or exposed reinforcement was observed. Additionally, a concrete
encasement of a pier cap was observed that had only been in place for 5 years. This
encasement was much less successful than the column encasement, and had already
exhibited delamination, extensive cracking and spalling. While encasements are usually
reliable for columns, their use on pier caps has experienced less effective results. The use
of FRP on pier columns and pier caps was observed only a year after the repair was
conducted. Initial results make FRP appear to be a much more appropriate repair for pier
caps than concrete encasements. Long term life of the column FRP repair needs to be
tracked for it to be effectively compared to concrete column encasement. The use of
sacrificial zinc anodes and sprayed-on concrete was another young repair that was
documented. Four years after the repair was conducted, it was still in sound condition.
No delamination was observed, and the entire concrete patch was still in place.
219

Throughout the research it was discovered that concrete repairs are the most
common throughout Wisconsin. The current repair procedures for concrete only address
the effect of the deterioration, and not the cause. Concrete surface repairs are frequently
conducted without addressing what caused the steel reinforcement to corrode and result
in delamination. When chlorides are allowed to remain in the existing concrete, or are
allowed to continue entering the concrete, the steel reinforcement corrosion will continue
to occur. Chloride extraction processes, cathodic protection and expansion joint
maintenance are all useful tools to prevent steel reinforcement corrosion. Repairs are
also available which not only replace section loss but incorporate a barrier to prevent
further chloride intrusion, such as fiberglass jacketing and fiberwrapping. Consideration
should be placed on repair life in addition to repair cost, since many of the concrete
surface repairs have exhibited high failure rates within a few years of placement.
Timber repairs that were researched involved the repair of individual timber piles
and timber sway bracing. A number of solutions are available which can replace a
deteriorated portion of a pile, and possibly protect it from further attack. Pile posting,
pile restoration and pile shimming all incorporate a new piece of treated timber in the
repair. These methods are cost effective, but will be subjected to the same deterioration
as the original pile since it is being replaced with the same material. Concrete jacketing,
pile augmentation and PVC wrapping are methods which leave the existing pile in its
deteriorated state, but replace the section loss with concrete and usually provide a
watertight seal. While these three methods are typically more expensive than a typical
timber replacement, they provide a level of protection against future deterioration.
220

Several other solutions are available to strengthen a timber pile bent, such as adding piles,
repairing sway bracing or creating sway bracing.
Since the only substructure member that is composed out of steel is piles, there is
not a wide range of options for steel substructure repair. Steel piles typically experience
section loss at the waterline from the continual wetting and drying of the member. This
can typically be rectified by adding steel to the cross section by welding or bolting.
Further protection against deterioration can be provided if a concrete encasement is also
incorporated for the repair. Fiberglass jackets that are form fitted to the specific H-pile
can be utilized for the repair, and have the unique advantage of not requiring dewatering.
If corrosion is a serious concern for H-piles, sacrificial anodes can be combined with any
of the included repairs to create further protection.
There are a wide variety of options available to reduce and repair scour on bridge
substructures. The repairs were separated into distinct categories to further differentiate
them. Structural repairs are designated as repairs which increase bearing of the existing
foundation, which could be through extending the footing below the scour line or
underpinning the existing foundation. Armoring techniques are repairs which place a
barrier to prevent erosion of the substrate. Armoring techniques included in the report
are riprap, partially grouted riprap, sheet piles with riprap, concrete armor units,
sacrificial piles, collars, gabion mattresses, grout filled mattresses and articulating
concrete blocks. Both the structural repairs and armoring techniques can be utilized on
piers or abutments when the conditions are appropriate. As a means of reducing the
erosive capacity of the water, a river stabilization method can be utilized. River
stabilization methods that were researched include bank barbs, engineered log jams and
221

check dams. While the techniques are different for the three methods, they all attempt to
reduce the energy and velocity of the river prior to it reaching the bridge substructure.
Depending upon what stage the scour is presently in, a structural repair, armoring
technique or river stabilization may be utilized.
8.2 Conclusions
Determining the efficacy of one repair method when compared to others is a
difficult task. The longevity of repairs throughout WisDOT is not currently being
tracked. Concrete surface repairs are often conducted without creating an appropriate
record of when the work was done. The estimates for appropriate service lives could be
much more accurate with proper records. As a means of comparing separate repairs,
three decision matrices were created. The first decision matrix, included as Table 8.1,
focuses on the different concrete repair methods. In order to effectively organize the
various concrete repairs they were separated into five categories. The categories are
cathodic protection systems, crack repairs, general deterioration repairs, abutment repairs
and bridge seat repairs. For the common repairs, pricing and service life data are
included as a means of comparing the available options. Since unique repairs for
abutments and bridge seats are less common, the data for pricing and service life was not
able to be obtained. It should be noted that many of the available service life estimates
are provided by specific product manufacturers. More accurate service life data may be
obtained through the continued tracking of repair longevity throughout WisDOT.

222

Table 8.1 Concrete Repair Decision Matrix

R
e
p
a
i
r

M
e
t
h
o
d
s
P
i
l
e
s
P
i
e
r
s
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t
s
B
r
i
d
g
e

S
e
a
t
s
U
n
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e

L
i
f
e
L
o
w
H
i
g
h
Y
e
a
r
s
E
m
b
e
d
d
e
d

G
a
l
v
a
n
i
c

A
n
o
d
e
X
E
a
c
h
$
2
4
.
0
0
$
3
6
.
0
0
1
5
2
0
1
2
G
a
l
v
a
n
i
c

A
n
o
d
e
X
X
X
E
a
c
h
$
2
1
.
0
0
$
3
6
.
0
0
1
5
2
0
1
2
I
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

A
n
o
d
e
s
X
E
a
c
h
$
2
9
.
0
0
$
9
7
.
0
0
2
5
-
3
0
2
0
1
2
C
h
l
o
r
i
d
e

E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
X
X
S
F
$
3
5
.
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
2
5
-
3
0
2
0
1
2
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d

G
a
l
v
a
n
i
c

T
u
b
e
X
X
X
E
a
c
h
1
0
-
2
0
2
0
1
2
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

S
p
r
a
y

Z
i
n
c
X
S
F
$
2
2
.
0
0
$
2
7
.
0
0
1
0
-
2
0
2
0
1
2
E
p
o
x
y

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
X
X
L
F
$
2
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
2
M
o
r
t
a
r
X
X
L
F
2
0
2
0
1
2
J
a
c
k
e
t
i
n
g
X
X
L
F
$
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
-
4
0
2
0
1
2
D
r
i
l
l
i
n
g

a
n
d

P
l
u
g
g
i
n
g
X
S
i
m
p
l
e

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

R
e
p
a
i
r
X
X
S
F
$
4
5
.
0
0
$
7
7
.
6
0
5
-
1
0
2
0
1
2
F
i
b
e
r
g
l
a
s
s

J
a
c
k
e
t
s
X
X
L
F
$
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
-
4
0
2
0
1
2
F
R
P

W
r
a
p
X
X
S
F
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
5
0
-
7
5
2
0
1
2
M
i
n
i

P
i
l
e
s
X
L
F
$
4
9
.
0
0
$
5
3
.
5
0
2
0
0
8
U
n
d
e
r
p
i
n
n
i
n
g
X
L
F
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
5
2
0
1
2
P
i
e
r

W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
X
E
a
c
h
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
0
8
E
n
c
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
X
X
L
F
2
0
2
0
1
2
S
p
r
a
y
e
d
-
O
n

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
X
X
S
F
$
7
.
2
0
$
2
0
.
1
3
2
0
0
8
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
X
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t

S
l
i
d
i
n
g

R
e
p
a
i
r
X
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
X
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t

S
l
o
p
e
-
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
X
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t

T
e
n
s
i
l
e

R
e
p
a
i
r
X
C
a
p

S
e
a
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
X
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

C
a
p

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
X
B
e
a
m

S
a
d
d
l
e

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
X
B
r
i
d
g
e

S
e
a
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
s
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t

R
e
p
a
i
r
s
G
e
n
e
r
a
l

D
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
a
i
r
s
Y
e
a
r

o
f

C
o
s
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
C
r
a
c
k

R
e
p
a
i
r
s
C
a
t
h
o
d
i
c

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
o
s
t
$
1
6
5
.
0
0
$
3
5
.
0
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
223

Since existing bridges typically only utilize steel and timber for piles, they were
combined into one decision matrix. Table 8.2 is the pile repair decision matrix, and
includes both rehabilitation of existing piles and addition of supplemental piles. It can be
noted that concrete piles are included in both the pile repair decision matrix and the
concrete repair decision matrix. Dependent upon the type of deterioration, a relevant
repair may be found in either matrix. In the pile repair decision matrix, the use of an
anode embedded jacket includes a service life estimate, but no cost estimate. This repair
is traditionally reserved for saltwater environments, and has a variable cost dependent on
a number of factors. The cost could be estimated using the provided anode costs,
fiberglass jacketing costs and site conditions if desired.
The last decision matrix that was created for the report compares the different
scour repairs that are available. Table 8.3 is the scour decision matrix and is separated
into armoring, structural and river stabilization techniques. Even though riprap is
typically reported for its effective nature, many departments only see it as a temporary
repair. There are several unique scour repairs included in the decision matrix which may
reduce cost and increase service life. The implementation of gabions or grouted riprap,
for example, can reduce the required riprap size while increasing the overall stability of
the repair. Recent research has started to examine many of these systems; however
service lives for scour repairs, particularly armoring techniques, are not readily available.
This lack of information may be due to the high use of riprap for repairs, the variability of
river conditions, or a lack of longevity tracking throughout the country. The difficulty of
a visual inspection may also play a role in not understanding exactly when a scour repair
fails.
224

Table 8.2 Pile Repair Decision Matrix

R
e
p
a
i
r

M
e
t
h
o
d
s
T
i
m
b
e
r
S
t
e
e
l
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
U
n
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e

L
i
f
e
L
o
w
H
i
g
h
Y
e
a
r
s
P
i
l
e

P
o
s
t
i
n
g
X
E
a
c
h
$
1
2
6
.
0
0
$
2
5
2
.
0
0
2
0
1
2
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

E
n
c
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
X
X
X
L
F
2
0
2
0
1
2
P
i
l
e

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
X
P
i
l
e

A
u
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
X
P
V
C

W
r
a
p
X
F
R
P

W
r
a
p
X
X
S
F
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
.
0
0
5
0
-
7
5
2
0
1
2
P
i
l
e

S
h
i
m
m
i
n
g
X
E
a
c
h
2
0
1
1
A
d
d
i
n
g

S
t
e
e
l
X
L
F
2
0
1
2
P
i
l
e

J
a
c
k
e
t
X
X
L
F
$
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
2
A
n
o
d
e
s
X
X
E
a
c
h
$
2
1
.
0
0
$
3
6
.
0
0
1
5
2
0
1
2
A
n
o
d
e

E
m
b
e
d
d
e
d

J
a
c
k
e
t
X
X
1
0
-
3
5
2
0
1
2
S
t
e
e
l

P
i
l
e
s
X
L
F
$
2
9
.
6
4
$
4
2
.
2
2
2
0
1
1
T
i
m
b
e
r

P
i
l
e
s
X
L
F
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

P
i
l
e
s
X
L
F
$
3
2
.
0
8
$
4
0
.
0
0
2
0
1
1
Y
e
a
r

o
f

C
o
s
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
o
s
t
$
1
7
.
0
0
$
2
0
.
0
0
P
i
l
e

R
e
p
a
i
r
$
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
.
0
0
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
i
l
e
s
225

Table 8.3 Scour Repair Decision Matrix
R
e
p
a
i
r

M
e
t
h
o
d
s
P
i
e
r
s
A
b
u
t
m
e
n
t
s
B
a
n
k

S
l
o
p
e
U
n
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e

L
i
f
e
L
o
w
H
i
g
h
Y
e
a
r
s
R
i
p
r
a
p
-
L
i
g
h
t
X
X
X
C
Y
$
4
2
.
9
1
$
4
9
.
0
2
2
0
1
1
R
i
p
r
a
p
-
M
e
d
i
u
m
X
X
X
C
Y
$
4
1
.
0
2
$
4
3
.
1
3
2
0
1
1
R
i
p
r
a
p
-
H
e
a
v
y
X
X
X
C
Y
$
3
2
.
9
2
$
4
2
.
9
0
2
0
1
1
G
r
o
u
t
e
d

R
i
p
r
a
p
X
X
X
C
Y
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
$
1
8
3
.
0
0
2
0
1
2
S
h
e
e
t

P
i
l
e
s

w
i
t
h

R
i
p
r
a
p
X
X
L
F
$
2
3
.
4
3
$
5
5
.
0
0
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

A
r
m
o
r

U
n
i
t
s
X
E
a
c
h
$
3
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
2
0
1
2
S
a
c
r
i
f
i
c
i
a
l

P
i
l
e
s
X
L
F
$
1
7
.
0
0
$
7
0
.
0
0
2
0
1
1
C
o
l
l
a
r
s
X
G
a
b
i
o
n

M
a
t
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
X
X
C
Y
$
3
0
.
0
0
$
6
0
.
0
0
2
0
1
2
G
a
b
i
o
n

B
a
s
k
e
t
s
X
C
Y
$
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
2
0
1
2
G
r
o
u
t

F
i
l
l
e
d

M
a
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
X
X
S
F
$
2
5
.
0
0
$
3
0
.
0
0
2
0
0
5
A
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

B
l
o
c
k
s
X
X
X
S
Y
$
8
2
.
5
0
$
1
3
5
.
0
0
2
0
1
2
S
l
o
p
e

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
o
r

E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
X
S
F
$
8
.
3
3
$
9
.
6
0
2
0
1
1
B
a
n
k

B
a
r
b
s
X
E
a
c
h
1
0
2
0
1
2
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
e
d

L
o
g

J
a
m
X
X
E
a
c
h
1
0
2
0
1
2
C
h
e
c
k

D
a
m
s
X
X
E
a
c
h
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d

F
o
o
t
i
n
g
s
X
X
B
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
X
C
Y
$
5
.
2
8
$
9
.
3
1
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

A
p
r
o
n

W
a
l
l
X
X
C
Y
$
3
8
5
.
7
8
$
4
9
4
.
0
4
2
0
0
8
U
n
d
e
r
-
P
i
n
n
i
n
g
X
L
F
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
5
2
0
1
2
M
i
n
i

P
i
l
e
s
X
L
F
$
4
9
.
0
0
$
5
3
.
5
0
2
0
0
8
Y
e
a
r

o
f

C
o
s
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

C
o
s
t
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
i
v
e
r

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
m
o
r
i
n
g
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
226

8.3 Recommendations & Future Research
The research that was conducted indicated that several actions can be taken to
increase the knowledge of repair efficacy. One of the most important changes that could
be implemented would be to start tracking longevity of repairs throughout Wisconsin.
Keeping a better record of simple concrete repairs, and making that record available
through the Highway Structures Information System (HSI) would help to determine why
some repairs are considered unreliable. In addition to tracking common repairs, new
experimental repairs should be well documented and tracked for longevity. Several FRP
repairs have been conducted in the Southwest region of WisDOT in the past few years.
A catalog of these repairs, documenting any visible deterioration that appears will help to
determine the efficacy of this technique for Wisconsins climate. In addition to
documenting longevity, the construction pricing provided in the decision matrix should
be regularly updated. Many of the prices that were obtained were from other states that
had experience with certain repair methods. Updating the decision matrix after some of
these repairs are conducted will increase its accuracy and relevancy. After longevity and
cost data has been assembled, a life cycle analysis can be conducted on any desired
repairs. Getting a better idea of the life of a specific repair will provide the designer with
useful information for determining which repair is most appropriate for a substructure.
After observing the relative successes and failures of repairs throughout
Wisconsin, it was determined that there are several actions that can be taken to increase
the reliability of existing repair methods. One of the main causes of substructure
deterioration in Wisconsin is expansion joint deterioration. Initiating a more aggressive
approach to expansion joint maintenance could prevent vast amounts of deterioration.
227

Replacing expansion joints before deterioration is observed on the substructure would
help to prevent the spalling and cracking that is currently occurring on many pier caps.
Another alteration that could be made to the current system is to modify the approach that
is taken for concrete surface repairs. The cause of deterioration is frequently not being
addressed when a concrete surface repair is conducted. Chlorides are being left in
existing concrete, which will reinitiate the deterioration process. The use of a concrete
surface repair with chloride extraction or cathodic protection would greatly increase the
reliability. Another repair that could be more reliable, if used appropriately, is concrete
encasement. While concrete encasement has been very successful for columns and piles,
it has not performed well on pier caps. There are other available repair methods for
concrete pier caps, such as FRP wrapping, which should be attempted before a concrete
encasement. Since the FRP wrap covers the top of the pier cap, it helps prevent further
deterioration caused by a leaking expansion joint. A concrete encasement provides no
protection on the top of the pier cap, and should only be utilized if some other form of
protection is included in the repair.
There are several topics that could be further investigated to help optimize future
substructure repair methods. The use of cathodic protection systems provides a wide
range of approaches to preventing reinforcement corrosion. They have been
implemented with success in many states throughout the country. Cathodic protection
systems have a higher initial cost, but a life cycle analysis could be conducted in order to
determine if the extended repair life is worth the additional cost. In addition to cathodic
protection, chloride extraction may be implemented to prevent steel reinforcement
228

corrosion. The removal of chloride ions from the concrete could greatly increase the
service life of a bridge and is worth further investigation.
There are a wide variety of scour repairs that have been researched in the past ten
years. Different approaches besides riprap should be investigated in order to ensure the
highest cost savings is always achieved. A life cycle cost analysis of the different scour
repairs may justify the use of alternative methods to riprap. Many states have had
experience and success utilizing manufactured scour armoring units, where riprap would
be costly or ineffective. Another repair that could be investigated is the use of geofoam
when an abutment is inadequate for the lateral loading. Since most of the approved
repairs for abutment movement involve deadman walls and soil anchors, geofoam could
be a cost effective alternative. Excavating the soil behind the abutment may prove to be a
difficult task, but several of the existing repair methods require that procedure. Research
could be undertaken which would analyze the reduction of lateral loading in addition to
the geofoams ability to withstand the surcharge loading.
Through the survey process it was discovered that many engineers have observed
a problem regarding the adhesion of concrete repairs. The use of a standard concrete
surface repair and a sprayed-on concrete repair were both noted for poor adhesion
properties. Further research into the bonding of old and new concrete, and the use of
bonding agents could prove useful as a means of increasing repair reliability. Many
engineers commented that replacing concrete with a similar type frequently resulted in
the best bonding performance. Determining which concrete characteristics are necessary
to keep consistent would result in a refined and reliable means of conducting concrete
patch repairs.
229

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agrawal, A.K., Khan, M.A., & Yi, Z. (2005). Handbook of Scour Countermeasures
Designs (Report No. 49777-11-04). Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of
Transportation.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
(2008). AASHTO Maintenance Manual for Roadways and Bridges (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.

Army and Air Force (1994). Bridge Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair (TM 5-
600/AFJPAM 32-1088). Washington, DC: Joint Departments of the Army and Air
Force.

Australian Rail Track Corporation LTD (ARTC) (2003). Bridge Repair Manual (RC
4300). Adelaide, Australia: Author.

Avent, R.R. & Alawady, M. (2005). Bridge Scour and Substructure Deterioration: Case
Study. ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering. Vol. 10, No. 3, 247-254.

Barkdoll, B.D., Ettema, R., Melville, B.W. (2007). Countermeasures to Protect Bridge
Abutments from Scour, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Synthesis 587. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board.

California Department of Transportation (CADOT). (2006). Maintenance Manual
Volume 1 Chapter H: Bridge. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Contech Engineered Solutions. (2011). Erosion Control Product Selection Guide
[Brochure]. West Chester, OH: Author.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2009). Bridge Scour and Stream Instability
Countermeasures: Experience, Selection, and Design Guidance (FHWA-NHI-09-
111 HEC 23) (3
rd
Ed.). McLean, VA: Author.

Fitch, G.M. (2003), Minimizing the Impact on Water Quality of Placing Grout
Underwater to Repair Bridge Scour Damage (VTRC 03-R16). Richmond, VA:
Virginia Department of Transportation.

Fox Industries/Simpson Strong Tie. (2011). Pile Restoration and Protection. Baltimore:
Author.

Hoe, D. (2001). Cable-Tied Block Protection of Bridge Abutments. Fourth-year project in
resource engineering, Department of Civil and Resource Engineering. Auckland,
New Zealand: The University of Auckland.

230

Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). (2011). Posted Documents for View and
Download. Retrieved September 22, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
https://netservices.indot.in.gov/ViewDocs2.0/

J.F. Brennan Inc. (2012). Concrete Repairs-Preplaced Aggregate Concrete (PAC).
Retrieved March 28, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.jfbrennan.com/ConcreteRepairsPAC.html

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. (2011). Construction Procurement. Retrieved
September 27, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
http://transportation.ky.gov/Construction-Procurement/Pages/default.aspx

Lagasse, P.F., Clopper, P.E., Zevenbergen, L.W. and Girard, L.G. (2007).
Countermeasures to Protect Bridge Piers from Scour, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 593. Washington DC:
Transportation Research Board.

Melville, B.W., Hadfield, A.C. (1999). Use of Sacrificial Piles as Pier Scour
Countermeasures. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 125, No. 11, pp.1221-
1224.

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). (2011). Maintenance and
Rehabilitation of Timber Bridges. MnDOT Timber Repair Manual. Retrieved April
2, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/documentsformslinks/inspection/USFS-
TimberBridgeManual/em7700_8_chapter14.pdf

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). (2008). Cathodic Protection
Systems: Use of Sacrificial or Galvanic Anodes on In-Service Bridges. Albany, NY:
Author.

Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). (2012). ODOT On-line Bridge
Maintenance Manual. Retrieved March 30, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/HighwayOps/Structures/bridge%20operations
%20and%20maintenance/PreventiveMaintenanceManual/Pages/default.aspx

Poseidon Alliance Ltd. (2011). A-Jacks High Stability Armour Units. Retrieved
November 24, 2011 from the World Wide Web: http://www.a-
jacks.com/Description/Description.aspx

Queensland Government Department of Main Roads (QGDMR). (2005). Timber Bridge
Maintenance Manual. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Business-and-industry/Technical-standards-and-
publications/Timber-bridge-maintenance-manual.aspx

231

Raina V.K. (1996). Concrete Bridge: Inspection, Repair, Strengthening, Testing and
Load Capacity Evaluation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sen, R. and Mullins, G. (2007). Application of FRP Composites for Underwater Piles
Repair. Composites Part B: Engineering, 38, 751758.

Sohanghpurwala, A.A. (2009). Cathodic Protection for Life Extension of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Bridge Elements, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 398. Washington DC: Transportation Research
Board.

Teng, J.G. and Jiang, T. (2008). Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete (RC) Columns
with Fibre-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites. In L.C. Holloway and J.G. Teng
(Ed.), Strengthening and Rehabilitation of Civil Infrastructure Using Fibre-
Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites (pp. 158-194). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Tilly, G.P. (2011). Durability of Concrete Repairs. In M.C. Grantham (Ed.), Concrete
Repair: A practical guide (pp. 231-247). New York: Taylor and Francis.

Vector Corrosion Technologies. (2010a). Vectrode Galvanode Jacket [Brochure]. Wesley
Chapel, FL: Author.

Vector Corrosion Technologies. (2010b). Vectrode Ti Tape Anode [Brochure]. Wesley
Chapel, FL: Author.

Vector Corrosion Technologies. (2011a). Ebonex [Brochure]. Wesley Chapel, FL:
Author.

Vector Corrosion Technologies. (2011b). Galvashield XP Product Line [Brochure].
Wesley Chapel, FL: Author.

Vector Corrosion Technologies. (2011c). Galvanode ASZ+ [Brochure]. Wesley Chapel,
FL: Author.

Vector Corrosion Technologies. (2012). Norcure Chloride Extraction [Brochure].
Wesley Chapel, FL: Author.

Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). (2010). Open Channel Flow.
Washington Hydraulics Manual. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M23-03/Chapter4.pdf

West, J.S., Larosche, C.J., Koester, B.D., Breen, J. E. and Kreger, M.E. (1999). State-of-
the-Art Report about Durability of Post-Tensioned Bridge Substructures (Texas DOT
Report 1405-1). Austin, TX: Texas Department of Transportation.

232

Wipf, T.J., Fanous, F.S., Klaiber, F.W., & Eapen, A.S. (2003). Evaluation of Appropriate
Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation Methods for Iowa Bridges (Iowa DOT
Project TR-429). Ames, IA: Iowa Department of Transportation Highway Division
and Iowa Highway Research Board.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). (2003). Bridge Inspection Pocket
Manual. Retrieved May 7, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
on.dot.wi.gov/dtid_bos/extranet/structures/HSI/help/pm/Index.htm

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). (2005a). Fiber Wrap Column
Reinforcing. Special Provisions Index. Retrieved February 24, 2012 from the World
Wide Web: http://on.dot.wi.gov/dtid_bos/extranet/structures/specials/specials-
index.htm

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). (2005b). Pier Column Encasement.
Special Provisions Index. Retrieved February 24, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
http://on.dot.wi.gov/dtid_bos/extranet/structures/specials/specials-index.htm

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). (2010). LRFD Bridge Manual.
Retrieved May 7, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
http://on.dot.wi.gov/dtid_bos/extranet/structures/LRFD/LRFDManualIndex.htm

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). (2011). Highway Structures
Information (HSI). Retrieved December 3, 2011 from the World Wide Web:
http://on.dot.wi.gov/dtid_bos/extranet/structures/LRFD/index.htm

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). (2012). Plans and Projects:
Bridges. Retrieved March 28, 2012 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/bridges/

Yoon, T.H. (2005). Wire Gabion for Protecting Bridge Piers. ASCE Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering. Vol. 131, No. 11, pp. 942-949.

A-1

Appendix A

Maintenance Engineer Survey Results

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

A-11

A-12

A-13

A-14

A-15

A-16

A-17

A-18

A-19

A-20

A-21

A-22

A-23

A-24

A-25

A-26

A-27

A-28

A-29

A-30

A-31

A-32

A-33

A-34

A-35

A-36

A-37

A-38

A-39

A-40

A-41

A-42

A-43

A-44

A-45

A-46

A-47

A-48

A-49

A-50

A-51

A-52

A-53

Repair and Strengthening of Bridge Substructures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Repair and Strengthening of Bridge Substructures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marquete University

. In an inspection from 2007,

You might also like